South Asia's water disputes

The water dispute has the potential for serious friction between the two neighbours if we do not take a calm and level-headed approach to the matter. Not surprisingly, this issue has been the main determinant of the level and nature of our bilateral relations.

Kofi Annan's comment that fierce competition for fresh water may well become a source of conflict and war encapsulates the negative potential of the issue. One suspects that the matter may be further compounded if its deprivation results from man-made causes.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

A UN report published in 2003, stating that water may be the source of the world's next big conflicts if nations don't start co-operating to share their resources, reinforces the UN Secretary General's apprehension. A published report in the same vein prepared by the Atlas of International Freshwater Agreements says that there are 263 river basins in the world that straddle international boundaries or define international borders between countries, and there are no agreements for 153 of these river basins. These basins are shared by over 145 countries and represent 60 per cent of the world's fresh water, and without diplomatic action, these basins could become flash points for conflict over water rights, the report suggests.

The statistics are meant to put into perspective the importance of water and the common man's ability to have access to it. This also brings into focus the consequences of failure to synthesise our efforts, not only to harness the rivers of the two great basins in South Asia, but also to adopt measures in respect of sharing the strategic waters and its resources on a regional basis. The Indian subcontinent is home to nearly 20 per cent of the world's population, but has only four percent of the world's fresh water flowing through several river basins. But more importantly, for Bangladesh, while only four per cent of the GMB basin command area lies in Bangladesh, this four per cent accounts for 37 percent of our landmass.

Some scholars ask whether or not the two neighbours could take the lead from India and China, by putting all contentious issues that for the time being resist quick solution on the back burner, and working for closer economic cooperation. That is all very well, but nothing that stands as contentious between India and China is a matter of life and death as is the water issue between Bangladesh and India.

This is why the Bangladesh position on the sharing of the waters of the common rivers, although pegged on a very principled stand, may appear rigid to our Indian friends. When the river system provides major sustenance to Bangladesh with our agriculture being largely dependent on the 54 rivers that flow through us, 53 of which run down from India, our stance cannot be otherwise.

Thus, when we call for an equitable distribution of a common resource, with existing international laws governing its use, it is extremely unfair to consider such a position as being politically motivated or slanted against a particular country. What some fail to realise is that our rivers are a very important strategic resource and we deserve our rightful share of their waters.

There were some interesting insights brought out in the BIISS seminar, although not all the speakers could do justice to their allotted subjects. It would have been nice to know the current status of India's river linking project, because one gets to hear different versions of the issue from the Indian side. Nor did we get to know the pros and cons of the plan, and inasmuch as it is designed to augment water availability and flood control as well as power generation, whether the ground realities bear out the rationale behind the project.

The Indian High Commissioner, however, came out with interesting information when she said that it was India's plans to link only the peninsular rivers and that the Himalayan rivers would remain outside the ambit of the project. The Indian river-linking plan consists of two components, the Himalayan Rivers and the Peninsular Rivers components, and the plan, from what was known of it so far, envisaged implementation of both the components. What the Indian high Commissioner said had not appeared in the media before.

The river-linking plan has been termed by many regional experts, including some from India as, "a frighteningly grandiose plan that proposes to modify nature." Experts call it a "misapplied vision" and an "extremely stupid idea" due to which it will be the Indians who will suffer before anybody else in South Asia. The plan has not only taken the riparians by surprise, many Indian analysts also question the sudden emergence of an old concept dating from the 19th century which, for various reasons, was discarded. The new project is perhaps the result of the study that India's National Water Development Agency (NWDA) has been doing over the last two decades since its establishment in 1982 in pursuance of the "National Water Perspectives" brought out by the Indian Ministry of Irrigation in 1980. There is a variance of view in this regard between the NWDA and the NCIWRD.

Insofar as Bangladesh's demand for equitable share of the Ganges water is concerned, the general argument that is offered by India is that Bangladesh has plenty of water. The problem lies in our inability to manage the same. One was therefore not surprised to hear the same tenor of argument at the seminar from the Indian High Commissioner in her response to the comments from the speakers and the other participants. India's aversion to a regional approach in addressing the issue was once again confirmed when she said, "The problem of water sharing can be resolved through bilateral discussions, not regional meetings."

No body can deny that Farakka has had the most unmitigated impact on Bangladesh's economy, on its fauna and flora, and the environment as a whole, and to suggest otherwise only demonstrates an unwillingness to acknowledge the fact. The distressing potential of the proposed river-linking project must also be recognised by all. However, Bangladesh should also take measures of its own, not as a riposte to Farakka, but to offset some, if not all its adverse impacts.

But harnessing the potential of common rivers as well as mitigating the damage these cause is not possible without cooperation. It must be remembered that the rivers transcend international boundaries and so do the river basins. It thus stands to reason that those that share basins must also participate in plans and programmes of mitigation, augmentation, and sharing of the resources.

In this regard India needs to reconsider its policy of bilateralism in favour of a regional multilateral approach.

The author is Editor, Defence and Strategic Affairs, The Daily Star.