April 25, 2004

With projects like Baglihar and Kishan Ganga, India is on the aggressive in terms of water-sharing mechanisms with its neighbours for whom it has become a constant struggle against the multi-headed water monster

CONTROL over water has always been important for the survival of human civilization. In the context of South Asia, where several civilizations have flourished or perished due to abundance or lack of water, it has assumed even greater significance because of population explosion and the need for industrialization in a nuclearized region.

Water-related issues are significant factor in bilateral relations of countries in the region, especially in the context of India’s relations with its neighbours who feel threatened by its huge land mass as well as its industrial and military power. Gradually it is assuming the character of regional issue as economies of several countries are likely to be adversely affected if New Delhi succeeded in all its hydro plans.

Pakistan, for instance, has registered its objection to the various projects India has started, like the Kishan Ganga project on river Jhelum and the Baglihar hydro-power and dam project on Chenab.

Pakistan believes that these projects are in violation of the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty, according to which it has exclusive rights over water of the three western rivers — Jhelum, Chenab and Indus.

Several rounds of talks held recently over the 450MW Baglihar project have proved inconclusive, with Pakistan voicing concern over the project’s design and arguing that its construction should not include a gated structure because in that case Pakistan would loose seven to eight thousand cusecs of water every day.

This would have serious consequences for Pakistan which has anticipated depletion in reservoir capacity of Tarbela and Mangla dams and consequent shortage of water during the next decade or so. It could also sharpen the water conflict within the country — between Punjab and Sindh — over water-sharing.

It was felt that in view of the new-found goodwill, the two sides would reach an agreement, but the talks have remained inconclusive, which indicate the lack of will on the part of the political leadership for settling disputes through dialogue.

The manner in which the talks between representatives of both India and Pakistan on the Permanent Indus Commission were structured further indicated that New Delhi wanted to gain time as the project is scheduled to be completed by June this year. If they could not reach agreement now, what will be left to talk about when the project will be completed as per the Indian plans?

Whatever we may pretend, the Indians have presented us with a fait accompli as we failed to take up the issue at the correct time.

The issue has assumed serious dimensions as New Delhi has embarked on several mega projects of dams, hydro-electrical power and river-linking projects to cater to its need for industrial development and growing population. The Indian projects envisage the utilization of resources of some of its smaller neighbours, who have complained that New Delhi is using strong-arm tactics to extract their ‘agreement’.

Surrounded from three sides by militarily and economically dominating India, Bangladesh is worried about the devastating impact of New Delhi’s river-linking project. Foreign Minister of Bangladesh Morshed Khan voiced his country’s concerns in no uncertain terms before a select audience in Dhaka recently where the audience in one voice described the Indian river-linking project as New Delhi’s weapon of mass destruction.

According to some reports water diversion or transfer plan by India envisages the construction of 30 link canals — 14 in Himalayan rivers and 16 in Peninsular rivers. The linking component dealing with the Himalayan rivers includes the building of reservoirs, barrages and other structures to store and divert water from the Brahmaputra and the principal tributaries of the Ganges. Surplus water will be used in the arid regions of Rajasthan and Gujarat on the west, and transferred by canals linking the Ganges with Subamarekha and Mahanadi rivers in Orissa — extending (by link canals) to Godavari, and Krishna and Cauvery rivers in the southeast. Some reports suggest that more than 600 canals will be dug up.

Dhaka, while expressing concern over such projects, has stressed that the issue should be settled not on a bilateral basis, which is New Delhi’s priority, but through regional approach and by following international law on river-sharing.

The issue has uncanny resemblance to the ongoing tussle between Punjab and Sindh over the sharing of Indus water and construction of the proposed Kalabagh dam and the Greater Thal Canal, and Bangladesh is no less concerned than Islamabad is in our own setting.

Dhaka-based Brigadier-General (retd) Sakhawat Hussain is highly critical of the Indian approach in the region. “The interlinking of international rivers by India is a death trap for Bangladesh,” he says. The planned project envisages major river-linking through a number of canals to draw waters from the Ganges and Brahmaputra to the western and southern parts of India to increase water flow of rivers during the lean period, he said. The project also aims at conserving excess water from these rivers in big reservoirs to divert water in much of the drought affected west and south. Bangladesh’s point of view, as spelt out by Brig Sakhawat, is that most of these rivers that are included as prime sources of excessive water for diversion are by all definition regarded to be international rivers shared by two or more countries, especially the Ganges and Brahmaputra, which are the main source of water for Bangladesh, will be worst hit as a lower riparian country.

Dhaka complains that New Delhi did not bother to officially inform Bangladesh about the project until the recent Joint River Commission (JRC) meeting. Indian intentions were clear when they first tried to avoid even a mention of the issue in the joint declaration. But after much fuss they agreed to do so at the end of the meeting.

The river-linking project though at a smaller scale was first envisaged in the 19th century by Sir Arthur Cotton when India was under British rule. The plan that was conceived in 1839 was aimed at easing the communication infrastructure problem from east to west. But the project could not attract the investors.

The situation has changed since the idea was first mooted. The subcontinent has been divided into various countries, especially with the emergence of two other independent countries out of colonial India. Besides, major rivers are no more exclusively Indian, but they are international rivers governed by international understanding of the water-sharing treaties in existence.

However, the current proposal of river connection aims at transferring excessive water from eastern states to the west and central India by creating artificial reservoirs. These reservoirs would then store water during high monsoon in the east and supply to drought affected western and southern parts of central India.

The project envisages linkage of major rivers, the main linkage being between the Ganges and Kaveri. The plan (north-south) was conceived in 1972, but the prohibitive cost was the major factor for the project lying idle for so long. The plan is already being contested by India’s eastern states, including Bihar, on the ground that it will deprive them of their due share.

The BJP government in New Delhi, however, seems determined to start the project that is certain to stir dissension both internally and externally, specially in Bangladesh which shares major eastern rivers with India. No one is willing to buy the argument that the project would resolve the problem caused by yearly floods and their negative impact on the economy.

The proponents of the project claim that even after storage major rivers, especially the Ganges, would have enough water both during high monsoon and in the dry season that would sufficiently meet Bangladesh’s requirement.

Brig Sakhawat, who is an expert on security and strategic matters, claims that the BJP government is already lobbying with the Bush administration to support India when it sought World Bank aid for the project. US-based NRIs (Non Resident Indians) are not only lobbying for project money, but many would like to invest in the project themselves.

On paper, the project entails a network of 30 canals over 10,000 kilometres, involving the construction of nine large and 24 small dams. Brig Sakhawat estimates the cost at Rs5.6 trillion if the project goes ahead today.

Prominent scientists and ecologists are also skeptical of the plan that would have a devastating effect on the ecology. M.V. Kamath, one of India’s leading analysts, in his recent article quoted Dr Bharat Singh, Professor Emeritus at the Water Resources Development Training Centre, as saying that the link from Mahanadi would require the construction the Manibhadra Dam which would submerge 45,900 hectares of mostly rich agricultural land, and displace 91,000 people.

Again, India will also have to convince Nepal and Bhutan to allow it to build four large dams in Nepal and two in Bhutan. More importantly, India will have to deal with strong protests from Bangladesh which will be affected if the Brahmaputra waters are diverted.

Quoting M.V. Kamath, the Bangladeshi expert says interlinking rivers will not necessarily prevent floods. Brahmaputra records an estimated volume of about 30,000 cubic meter flow per second during the monsoon, and even a diversion of about 1,500 cubic meter of water per second would not help curb the magnitude of floods.

“We are already witnessing the fate of Indo-Bangla water treaty that was signed in 1996 to settle the Farakka Barrage issue. According to the treaty, India is supposed to allow at least 35,000 cusecs of water to flow into Bangladesh, but it hardly reaches above 25,000 cusecs. This short flow of water during the lean period is damaging Bangladesh. Reports of the rise of arsenic and salinity are all affects of just one barrage. What it would be like when there are several?” Brig Sakhawat asks.

If the river-linking project does go ahead, the entire flow of water towards the Ganges delta and Bangladesh would remain under Indian control. Naturally, it is going to spell disaster for its neighbours.

According to Mohammad Humayun Kabir, the Indo-Bangladesh history of negotiations over water-sharing of common rivers has been “long, tortuous and often futile”, and the reports that India plans to unilaterally divert Brahmaputra, the Ganges and Jamuna waters is threatening Bangladesh with serious consequences.

There are as many as 57 rivers in Bangladesh, including the three major ones — the Ganges, Brahmaputra and Meghna — whose headwaters are located outside its territory. According to Kabir, the inflow of water from India into Bangladesh constitutes about 82 per cent of the total surface flow, while only eight per cent is generated within the country.

Barrister Harunur Rashid, while examining various case laws with regard to the rights of lower riparian states, says no country has the right to unilaterally withdraw or divert flow of common rivers to the detriment of another country.

In support of his assertion he cites the 1959 Sudan-Egypt Treaty in respect of the construction of the Aswan Dam on the Nile, the 1944 treaty between the US and Mexico, the 1961 Treaty between the US and Canada on the Columbia River, and, of course, the Indus Basin Treaty between India and Pakistan.

The Ganges Water Agreement of 1977 and the subsequent conclusion of the Treaty on the Ganges Water in 1996 for thirty years demonstrated clearly that waters of the Ganges are to be shared equitably between Bangladesh and India. The treaty provides that waters of common rivers are to be shared between Bangladesh and India.

Although a regional monitoring commission is being proposed by analysts from Bangladesh and other countries, India wants its resolution bilaterally. Bangladesh is apprehensive because in that case India would manage to have its way against a weak neighbour.

It seems that not many options Bangladesh have except for an aggressive diplomacy. Analysts believe that Dhaka should start consultation with other regional countries like Nepal and Bhutan which are included in the river-linking plans of India. Some experts have also proposed that China should also be included in consultations because Brahmaputra originates from Tibet.

India, however, would not agree to consultation with China because that exercise of extended neighbourhood approach would clash with ambitions of exclusivity, and change the concept of being South Asian. Perhaps it is likely to oppose any discussion in the realm of SAARC as well.

Dhaka might be compelled to take its case to donor agencies that are likely to be involved in financing the project. Bangladesh might also be compelled to seek UN assistance in the impending crisis that is likely to loom over South Asia on water issue.

With an Indian team due here shortly as part of the ongoing dialogue on water-related issues, Pakistan would do well to learn every lesson it possibly can from the manner in which India has conducted its water-sharing affairs with Bangladesh.

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)