Bangladesh-India water talks identify problems

In the recent past we have had a series of high level ministerial visits to Dhaka from India. This reflected the understanding that neighbours need to resolve their outstanding issues through dialogue. This is the only way out India, as the senior member of the South Asian club only enhances her image through such a process. Such steps also encourage other confidence building measures.

Last month's visit by Priya Ranjan Dasmunshi, the Indian Water Resources Minister, was the third ministerial visit from India in a matter of weeks. It followed the visit of the Indian ministers Natwar Singh and Mani Shankar Aiyer. The visits not only reopened much needed channels of communication between Dhaka and Delhi but also built up trust that had eroded in the recent past. What was important was the constructive engagement between the two sides.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

The 36^th ministerial meeting of the Joint Rivers Commission quite expectedly had a long agenda. This was a consequence of the long delay between meetings. There had been a series of meetings over Teesta water sharing at the level of Joint Committee of Experts and the Joint Technical Group but the last session of the JRC was held almost two years ago. Such a situation was contrary to Chapter V of the 1972 India-Bangladesh Joint Rivers Commission Statute that stipulates ordinary sessions of the commission be held generally four times a year.

The scenario had also turned more complex with media reporting that the Indian government, as opposed to assurances given to Bangladesh, was initiating projects towards comprehensive River Linkages. The signing of the MOU (for connecting Ken and Betwa rivers) between the Chief Ministers of Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh in the presence of the Indian Prime Minister on August 25 created more concern in Dhaka. There was apprehension that this was another step towards eventual transfer of Himalayan waters to the peninsular south through the Ganges-Subarnarekha-Mahanada-Godavori axis. This was also interpreted as being opposed to Article 9 of the Ganges Water Treaty that suggests that both countries shall avoid unilateralism and enter into water sharing agreements with regard to all common rivers on the basis of the principles of equity and fairness as expected between co-riparian countries.

All these factors -- the lack of progress since the 25^th JRC meet, held in July 1983 , the difficulties that had surfaced during the 31^st JRC meeting in early 1990 and inability to finalise decisions after the 33^rd JRC meeting in 1999 had contributed to miscommunication and misunderstanding. Consequently the visit of the Indian Water Resources Minister was eagerly awaited.

It was anticipated that the talks would take note not only of outstanding issues but also try to find ways and means on how to make the process more effective and efficient. This, it was felt, would be consistent with existing views that measures pertaining to sustainable development, better management of the environment, poverty reduction and reduction of flooding would be impossible without proper and equitable water management.

Mr. Dasmunshi, to his credit took his visit seriously. His past association with Bangladesh and its war of liberation persuaded him to forsake the usual bureaucratic approach and seek a broader policy of engagement. He prepared himself for his visit through meetings with the political leadership of the Indian states neighbouring Bangladesh -- Mr. Buddhadev Bhattacharya, the Chief Minister of West Bengal, Mr. Manik Sarkar, the Chief Minister of Tripura and also the Chief Minister of Assam. This showed seriousness and an open mind.

The Bangladesh side had a wish-list that reflected the domestic anxiety of its water experts, its environmentalists and its economists. It was also more or less bi-partisan in nature.

The Bangladesh Water Resources Minister Hafizuddin Ahmed quite understandably, in the meetings spanning two days, highlighted several issues that needed resolution.

The foremost was the water sharing of seven transboundary rivers -- Teesta, Dharla, Dudhkumar, Monu, Khowai, Gumti and Muhuri.

Teesta received special attention. Experts from the two sides considered in greater detail the points of water release, site for measurement of flows and the periods of sharing. In this context it was also underlined that Bangladesh receives extremely low water flow in Teesta during the lean period (January-May) and that India withdraws unilaterally a majority share of its water at Gazaldoba, disrupting severely Bangladesh's Teesta barrage irrigation scheme. Teesta also came in for special attention because the Ganges Water Treaty notes that the Teesta water sharing model could be followed for finalising the water sharing formula of other common rivers.

Reference was also made by Bangladesh to the importance of identifying midstream points of rivers where they demarcate boundaries. This was done to tackle the question of unwanted erosion resulting out of the construction of groynes and other river training attachments in the upstream near river banks.

Two other problems were also placed on the table -- construction of the Tipaimukh Hydrological Dam on the river Barak, feeder for the Meghna river system within Bangladesh and the need for making available more advanced flood forecasting data.

The Bangladesh delegation recognising the increasing need for water and energy in South Asia also proposed that availability of water and energy could be facilitated through regional cooperation. It was suggested that the matrix could include Nepal and Bhutan and the construction of reservoirs in the upper reaches of Himalayan rivers. Such additional storage facility could then provide extra water to both India and Bangladesh in the lean months and also extra electricity to be generated through hydropower facilities. Such a measure would also be an example of South Asian unity.

Both sides stressed on the need to consider all issues on the basis of ground realities.

As expected, the discussion took note of contentious issues. There was movement forward in certain areas but no major breakthroughs. Political will also took the backseat on the important proposal of water management and South Asian unity.

The important points agreed upon included -- the willingness to convene Joint River Commission meetings regularly without inordinate delay, the resolve to review the 'operational implementation' of the 1996 Ganges Water Sharing Treaty and agreement by India to provide to Bangladesh the detailed plan of the Tipaimukh Hydrological Dam to reaffirm that it was a power generating venture and not an irrigation scheme. It was however not clarified as to whether India would be willing to amend its designs if Bangladesh considered some elements to be controversial. It was also decided to undertake a joint inspection by both Water Resources Ministers of the erosion affected areas related to the Teesta and Feni rivers after Eid-ul Fitr. It was also agreed that Bangladesh would receive flood forecasting data 61 hours beforehand for the Ganges river and 67 hours before for the Brahmaputra river. This last aspect was particularly welcome.

The Indian Water Resources Minister also assured his counterpart and the media that India had no intention to initiate linking of Himalayan rivers as it would be unacceptable not only to Bangladesh but also to the Indian States of West Bengal and Bihar. One would have to monitor the future situation very carefully in this regard. We have the highest regard for the minister's views but the logic that it will be opposed by some Indian states is hardly the best defence. Clarity, transparency and sharing of information about this project would be a much better means of doing away with unnecessary anxiety and concern and building credibility. A statement by the Indian Prime Minister in the Indian Parliament that there will be no river-linking of Himalayan rivers would also be particularly reassuring. We must not forget that in both countries there are groups of people who are not always interested in amity.

The meeting also decided that both countries will work together on the arsenic contamination problem. India will provide technical support and training to Bangladeshi scientists in arsenic prevention strategy. This was indeed a positive step.

India has shown great maturity in the manner it has approached the various items included in the agenda of the meeting. There has been movement forward.

However, it still needs to muster necessary political will to view water management and utilisation issues in the broader context of integrated water resources management in South Asia. It was as such a disappointment to be informed that India thinks that SAARC should only deal with economic cooperation and not have anything to do with sharing of water resources. How can you have sustainable development, protection of the environment and reduction of poverty without proper management on a regional basis of the most important ingredient -- water? There has to be a change in the mind-set. Water as a commodity needs to be viewed as a shared regional source and not in terms of closed bilateral compartments.

India and the rest of the South Asian countries must not forget that prosperity in this age of globalisation can only thrive and grow in the regional context. The countries of Europe have shown to the rest of the world how common goals, sharing of resources and cooperation can create peace and prevent conflict. In the regional context, because of its technological superiority, India can be the first among equals. All it needs is more confidence in itself and less insecurity.

Muhammad Zamir is a former Secretary and Ambassador any response to mzamir@dhaka.net