Indian Rivers and Bangladesh

Rivers of no return




News from Dhaka is disturbing for India's mega project on Interlinking of Rivers (ILR). Bangladeshi Water Resources Minister Hafizuddin Ahmed is reported to have favoured international mediation to stop India from going ahead with the project saying the Indian initiative would be another death trap for Bangladesh. Citing how the World Bank had played a significant role in minimising the disputes on sharing of river water between India and Pakistan, he wanted the issue of ILR to be taken up at the SAARC Summit.

In a similar tone, the Bangladeshi Environment and Forest Minister, Taruqi Islam, is stated to have urged the civil society to raise their voice against the project, as it is feared that the project would affect Bangladesh's environment and bio-diversity and result in acute water crisis. Combining disinformation, wrong information and information based on subjective conclusions, the vituperative attacks by Bangladesh, it seems, is to draw international support against the Indian project.

The war of words with India by Bangladesh on sharing river water has been going on for many decades. However, whenever the relations improved, constructive dialogues did take place; such as India taking up works for the Tipaimukh dam on the Barak river at the request of Bangladesh during 1972-73 for finding a solution to the flood problems in its Sylhet-Dhaka plains. Likewise, issues of releasing Ganga water from Farakka could be sorted out as happened in 1996 with the signing of the treaty on sharing the lean flows of the Ganga at the barrage site.

In spite of India accommodating the claims of Bangladesh, even if that meant inconveniencing the Indian public, the latter continued to make complaints against the former on water-related issues whenever it suited that county politically. It conveniently put under wraps the assurances given by India on the Tipaimukh Dam Project and accused India of planning to divert the Barak Waters. Also, it charged India for flouting the Ganga water treaty, despite India fully honouring it. Bangladesh continues to harp on these issues claiming to be an aggrieved party.

The ILR project, planned after carrying out detailed studies by the National Water Development Agency (NWDA) of India, comprises a Peninsular component and Himalayan component for water transfer from water endowed regions to water deficit areas in India. The proposal under the Himalayan component plans to divert excess flood waters of the eastern tributaries of the Ganga to the arid west and of Northern tributaries of the Brahmaputra to the drought prone areas in the South and South eastern regions. Water balance studies carried out by the NWDA have established that excess flood water is available at all the diversion points planned on the Himalayan rivers. All the link proposals under the Himalayan component are at the conceptual stage of planning.

The NWDA proposals were reviewed by the Task Force constituted by the Ministry of Water Resources which subsequently submitted two Action Plans to the Government recommending priority for taking up the Peninsular component, since the Himalayan component needed understanding with neighbouring countries. Government thinking is also along these lines as evident from the CMP.

A study of the available data indicates that the average annual flows in the Ganga-Brahmaputra-Meghna (GBM) basin in India are estimated at 1200 billion cubic metres (BCM). Of this, only three per cent would be considered for diversion outside the basin in the Himalayan component plan.

Why then does Bangladesh want the project to be scrapped? The country has been encouraged by the developments in the Indus basin where Pakistan, the lower riparian, was successful in stopping India, the upper riparian, from constructing the Tulbul Navigation Project on the Jhelum in 1987. It is now attempting to stop the construction of the Baglihar Project on the Chenab in India by taking up the issue with the World Bank. In the case of Ganga-Brahmaputra-Meghna Basin, India is the upper riparian while Bangladesh is the lower riparian. The UN Convention on the Non-navigational Uses of International Water Courses adopted in 1997 (though still to be ratified) has institutionalised the two principles in the upstream-downstream uses of an international waterway by emphasising both on "equitable use" and "an obligation not to cause significant harm".

Hence, being the lower riparian, Bangladesh wants the project to be stopped, staking its right under the principle of "no significant harm". It hopes to get the bilateral issue internationalised, and in the process derive maximum mileage in the bargain knowing fully well our accommodating spirit.

India must not succumb to such pressure tactics. If it does, it is bound to embolden Bangladesh into demanding its concurrence for any project planned even in the interior of the country, say, the river Chambal. India should conduct a detailed investigation for both the components of the ILR project and inform its people whether the much-talked about project is feasible or not. The Himalayan component should not be given a low priority just to please Bangladesh.

(The Pioneer, Dated 13th April, 2005)