India's disputed inter-river basin water project

India's latest mega plan for inter-linking rivers is a follow-up of other previous projects that have been part of a dream for that country.

The notion that rivers need to be linked started in India in the 19th century. Sir Arthur Cotton first thought of a plan to link rivers in southern India to aid inland navigation. The idea was subsequently abandoned because inland navigation lost ground to the emerging strength of the railway network.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

After independence, Captain Dinshaw Dastur, an airline pilot proposed the fanciful 'Garland Canal.' Later, Dr KL Rao, former Indian Minister for Water Resources proposed the Ganga-Cauvery Link. Popular with the Indian population, it proposed that the link could take off near Patna, pass through the basins of the Sone, Narmada, Tapi, Godavori, Krishna and Pennar rivers, and join the Cauvery upstream of the Grand Anicunt. It was expected that under such a Plan, 2640 km long, it would be possible to withdraw 60,000 cusec from the flood flows of the Ganges for about 150 days in the year. It would also involve a lift of a substantial part of that water over 1500 feet. The scheme was carefully examined and discarded not only because of its impracticality but also because of the financial outlay required. It was also felt that the whole thing would require very large energy component.

The inter-linking of rivers is also often referred to as inter-basin transfers. Many hydrologists think that this format provides a solution whereby disparities in the different river basins can be overcome through water transfers taking place from the surplus basins to the deficit basins. It is this philosophy that has led some to suggest the tapping of surplus resources of the mighty Brahmaputra. According to one school of opinion in India, a significant part of the water resources of India, estimated in terms of the flows near the terminal points of the river systems, lies in the Brahmaputra, far from the areas where the demand for water is high.

It may be recalled that in the talks with Bangladesh over river waters in the seventies and eighties, India proposed a gigantic (100,000 cusecs) Brahmaputra-Ganges gravity link canal taking off from Jogighopa (Barrage across the Brahmaputra) in India, passing through Bangladesh, and joining the Ganges just above Farakka. This proposal was rejected by Bangladesh for many valid reasons. Some in India then thought of diverting the Brahmaputra waters to the Ganges entirely through Indian territory (the Siliguri chicken-neck) but found that topographic needs would require and involve large lifts which be both unviable and also questionable.

The issue however refused to die. It was just set aside in the rear burner. As has been noted by an analyst, the Brahmaputra diversion plan was not even part of the Indian agenda during the last Joint River Commission meeting held in Dhaka in January 2001.

The whole idea came back to forefront in India with a passing observation by the Indian President Mr Abdul Kalam in his address to the Nation on the eve of the Indian Independence Day on 14 August, 2002. He pointed out to the fact that some states in India continued to suffer perpetually from drought while others faced misery from floods and wondered whether some solution could be found. Acting on the President's observations, an Indian lawyer, Ranjit Kumar filed a Public Interest Litigation case before the Indian Supreme Court the same month. He raised the question of networking of rivers for the first time within the judicial process. Subsequently, a bench headed by the then Chief Justice of India, BN Kirpal, after considering the matter as an independent writ petition ruled that there should be inter-linking of rivers in India. He also set a 10 year deadline for the implementing of the project. An order was also passed on October 31, 2002 in contravention of all agreed and acceptable international legal norms and conventions. Subsequently, the Indian government set up a high powered task force under former Union Minister Suresh Prabhu MP to oversee the Scheme.

Analysts noted that the directive had political bonus written all over it, and was therefore immediately seized upon by the Indian government which had been facing the intractable problem of the inter-state Cauvery water dispute. Prime Minister Vajpayee to the happiness of his party extended his personal support and pledged that his government would pursue the matter on a war footing. His rivals in the Congress Party have also seen the wisdom in backing a populist idea. All the high sounding views about supporting international law appears to have been swept under the carpet. Water is now being seen as being part of better internal security.

It is understood that the Indian Perspective Plan with regard to this Project envisages developments in two components -- those for the Peninsular rivers and those for the Himalayan rivers. The Peninsular rivers again could be roughly divided into four stages which would include -- the inter-linking of Mahanadi-Godavorik-Krishna-Cauvery rivers, the inter-linking of west flowing rivers, the inter-linking of Ken-Chambal (thereby providing water grid for Madhya Pradesh and Uttara Pradesh) and diversion of other west flowing rivers linked with the Western Ghats to meet the water demands of Kerala and other adjoining drought affected areas.

The Himalayan rivers component envisage construction of storages on the principal tributaries of the Ganges and the Brahmaputra in India, Nepal and Bhutan. Within this context, canal systems are also being thought of to be inter-linked to transfer surplus flows of the eastern tributaries of the Ganges to the West, apart from linking the main Brahmaputra and its tributaries with the Ganges, and the Ganges with Mahanadi.

The Indian Plan expects the following benefits to accrue from the Scheme -- raising the ultimate irrigation potential from 113 million hectares to 148-150 million hectares and generation of 34,000 million KW of Power. In addition, Indian economists are also pointing out potential benefits like flood control, better navigation, water supply, fisheries, salinity and pollution control.

The Indian National Water Development Agency proposes to complete all the feasibility studies by 2005. It is also going to work out how to complete 30 links-14 Himalayan and 16 Peninsular over the next ten years. Initially, the cost of the entire project is expected to exceed $118 billion (approximately Indian Rupees 560,000 crores).

The only problem is that this selfish approach is meant to assist the Indian population at the expense of Bangladesh.

India is apparently stressing on the Hormon Doctrine, which originated in the United States in 1895, but has never gained universal acceptance. It is conveniently forgetting various provisions of the Montevideo Declaration of American States (1933), the views of the 1977 UN Water Conference held in Mar del Plata, the decision of the Lake Lanoux Arbitral Tribunal in the dispute between Spain and France and those of legal experts from the International Law Commission.

Notable water expert, Tauhidul Anwar Khan, Member of the Joint River Commission has also very correctly pointed out that India's unilateral move to inter-link the trans-boundary rivers contravenes existing Articles of the 1996 Treaty between Bangladesh and India with regard to the sharing of the Ganges Waters at Farakka. According to him, such a scheme would be contrary to the body and spirit of Articles 2(2) and 9 of this Treaty and would affect providing of due share of common river's water to a co-riparian. He also pointed out that Bangladesh has always believed in resolving water issues through talks and considers that augmenting and harvesting surplus water for greater good of the region should come only through collective understanding and not through unilateral decision-making.

The Indian plan envisages transfer of water of the Ganges and its tributaries to Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Gujrat. Similarly, it also plans to divert the waters of the Brahmaputra and its tributaries to the Ganges and from there to the Godavori, Krishna, Pennar and Cauvery basins through Subrnarekha in West Bengal and Mahanadi of Orissa.

Such steps would have disastrous impact on the economy of Bangladesh, its ecology, the livelihood of its people, its eco-system. It will also in the long run lead to internal displacement of millions of its citizens. Specialists have also pointed out that implementation of such a project would most certainly lead to more severe flooding in the monsoon and worse droughts in the lean season. Such vagaries would also contribute to increased salinity across the country and sharp fall in sweet water levels. These factors would juxtapose to eventually destroy the largest mangrove forest in the world, the Sunderbans.

The cause for anxiety and concern arises out of Indian plans to particularly divert water from the Brahmaputra. In the dry season, flows of the Brahmaputra in Bangladesh is roughly 123,000 cusec. Out of this a minimum of 70,000 cusec must be maintained near Ilshaghat in lower Meghna to check ingress of salinity from the Bay of Bengal. The additional water of the Brahmaputra is required for agricultural use particularly in vast areas of the north-east and north-west regions of the country. Because of the insufficiency in the supply of water from the Ganges, this country needs the Brahmaputra.

The Government of India is now claiming that the Indian river linking plan would not transfer water of the Brahmaputra from its existing dry season flows. It is adding that it aims to conserve some amount of the monsoon flows of the river in the upstream reservoirs for transfer to the Ganges and elsewhere. This claim is however flawed. Surveys carried out in Assam and Bangladesh have shown that little of the monsoon flows of the Brahmaputra can be harnessed by storage. Moreover, most of the catchments of the proposed storage reservoirs in the upper part of the Brahmaputra basin fall within China. These reservoirs will also have to be located in highly seismic zones and therefore be latently dangerous.

What is required is acceptance of Article 8 of the 1996 Treaty and the need to co-operate with each other in finding a solution to the long terms problem of augmenting the flows of the Ganges during the dry season. It should be a South Asian approach with Nepal and Bhutan also being associated. Consistent with proposals put forward earlier by Bangladesh in 1983, four dams could be built at Chispani, Trisulganga, Seti and Sapt Kosi in Nepal. There would then not only be additional flow of over 100,000 cusec into the Ganges during the lean period January to May but also avoid extraction from the Brahmaputra.

It is disappointing that the Joint Committee of Experts set up in July, 1997 between the two countries has held so far only five meetings. Meaningful progress is being thwarted. In the absence of any agreement on sharing the common rivers, the dry season flows of the Teesta, Manu, Khowani, Gumti, Muhuri in Bangladesh have been drastically reduced by upstream diversions across the borders. The same has been the case with the flows of Mohananda, Bhairab, Kodla and a number of other common rivers. This phenomenon is already causing serious adversity in the economic life of the people in these areas and also in the environment. We just cannot allow further aggravation.

If the Indian government has taken up the Plan reportedly on a war footing, then our government should also react accordingly in sensitising world opinion. It is here that our Ministry of Foreign Affairs should act closely with other relevant Ministries and Institutions within the country. Unfortunately, except for superficial efforts, one does not notice any particular urgency in the manner things are being dealt with. By now the Prime Minister should have requested for the convening of a Special Session of our Parliament to discuss this issue to underline its national importance. The Leader of the Opposition should also treat this Scheme as one of bipartisan concern.

Muhammad Zamir is a former Secretary and Ambassador