& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

BottoSm line

How can Bangladesh respond to Indian river-linking proposal?

Harun ur Rashid
INDIA'S plan of inter-linking trans-boundary rivers to create a new "national water grid" seeks to provide increased amount of surface water from trans-boundary rivers to other parts in India.The plan traces its idea back to India's Vatter Resources Minister K.LRao's proposed National Water Grid of 1972 and Captain Dastoor's Garland Canals of 1977.
India has always conceived interlinking rivers to transfer water from so-called "surplus" areas to so-called "deficit" areas within its territory. During the negotiations in 1977 on the Ganges Water Agreement, I distinctly remember that a senior member of India's delegation disclosed informally to me that if the India's canal link proposal (logighopa to Farakka) through Bangladesh. linking Brahmaputra with the Ganges, was not accepted. India eventually would transfer water from Brahmaputra to the Ganges through its territory above Bangladesh.
If India proposes to inter-link its peninsular rivers (Mahanadi-Godavari-Krishna-Pcnnar-Cauvery), without affecting its neighbours, Bangladesh has nothing to say as the rivers involved are within the territorial jurisdiction of India.
When India attempts to inter-link Himalayan rivers (Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna) without explicit agreement of Bangladesh, it raises serious concerns from the point of view of two international law principles: (a) state responsibility, and (b) lawof international rivers.
Besides die above principles of law, the plan comes within die ambit of Article 9 of the 1996 Ganges Water TYeaty wherein both Bangladesh and India agreed "to conclude water sharing 'lYeaties/Agrcements with regard to othercommonrivers."
Political agenda?
At a conference on "Regional Cooperation on Transboundary rivers: Impact of the Indian River-Linking Project" held in Dhaka from Decem-
ber 17-19,200-1, many Indian speakers, mostly experts on water resources management, have expressed strong reservations on the inter-linking plan of rivers on serious technical and environmental grounds.
Among them is an India eco-activist, Ms. Medha Patekar who leads the National Alliance of People’s Movement, a network of over 150 mass-based movements. During an interview with The Daily Star, she revealed the real motives behind the inter-linking river plan.
She said: "Water has become an
electoral issue in India and river linking project is a political agenda. The government of India looks at the project as a sort of gift to the voters." Furthermore, it has been reported that the people of Bihar, Orissa, Assam. West Bengal, and Karnataka areopposedtotheproject.
On December 19, India's High Commissioner to Bangladesh, Veena Sikri, at the conclusion session of the conference reportedly defended the linking plan. She argued that firstly it is a plan only, not yet a "project," and secondly India's share of water per capita is much less than that of Bangladesh (she has been quoted placing India at2,200 cubic metres per capita versus Bangladesh's 19,600).
It seems implicit from the statement of the High Commissioner that the plan or concept of inter-liking rivers is astep in the right direction to mitigate flood and drought situation in India. It is obvious that being the official representative of the government of India, she has to defend government's policy and plan.
Big power dynamics
The attitude contained in the statement has reflected the dynamics of relations of big and small states that has been summed up by the Greek historianThucydides (460-395 BC) as follows:
" The strong do what they have power to do and
The weak accept what they have to accept."
In the days of global law and order, regulated by international law and
bilateral treaties/agreements, strong states cannot do whatever they choose to do without having adverse impact on global order. The exercise of sovereign power within the territory is not unfettered and issubject to rules of international law and principles of good neighbourliness, as contemplated in the UN Charter.
A rose, by whatever name it is called, Is still a rose. Likewise, the plan or project, whatever name by which It is called, does not alter its substance. The plan of linking the mighty rivers of the Himalayas has caused grave concerns among peo-
pie of Bangladesh for mainly for two reasons: ignorance of the plan in its details and thesize of the plan.
India has not thought it fit to take Bangladesh into confidence as to the layout of the plan in respect of the Himalayan component, which comprises 19 diversion points, 16 reservoirs, and 19 water transfer links, despite the existence’of the Indo-Bangladesh Joint River Commission and of the current bilateral friendly relations. Many in Bangladesh have reluctantly come to a view that the lack of providing information of the plan at an official level to the Bangladesh authorities demonstrates that India is not keen for regional cooperation in the matter.
What can Bangladesh do? Bangladesh does not wish to make the water Issue an international one unless it is pushed back to the wall. In 1976, Bangladesh had to raise the issue of the sharing of the Ganges water at the UN General Assembly. Despite strong opposition from India, the General Assembly found the issue as one that might endanger peace andstabilityinthe region.
India realised that there was no way togetoutoftheissue and agreed to a Consensus Statement of the President of the General Assembly, rather than a UN General Assembly resolution. The statement of November 26, 1976, urged India to commence negotiations immediately in Dhaka with Bangladesh, that eventually respited in the,conclusion qf the.
1977GangesWater Agreement.
Internalisation of the water issue doesnotseemtobeareadyoptionfor Bangladesh, given thecurrentstateof bilateral relations with India. India has only to abide by the provisions of the 1996 Ganges Water TYeaty and rules of international law on uses of international/trans-boundary rivers. This is not a big ask from India because India has to respond to the lawful right of Bangladesh on uses of waters of common rivers through cooperative basis.
The construction of Farakka Barrage and its operation in 1975
demonstrates that if India wants to undertake interventions (such as dam, barrage, or other river construction work) on the natural flowof trans-boundary rivers, it will do so despite Bangladesh's opposition. India is an upper riverine country and is placed in an advantageous position vis a vis lower riverine Bangladesh. Bangladesh has to realise this hard fact.
Self-reliance
Bangladesh has to rely on its own plan of water management and utilisation. No outside country will do this for Bangladesh. Self-help is the first call of the game. It seems that due to reasons known only to the authorities, Bangladesh has not adequately focused on water utilisation projects in the country and did not reportedly fund sufficiently in water sector. A budget break-up per year for water sector may disdose this fact
The Ganges Barrage project within Bangladesh was conceived in the 70s. Short canals from the Ganges Barrage would have led water into the moribund rivers of the delta, using them to distribute water for salinity control in the Sunderbans, consumption for domestic and industrial use, and irrigation.
When Teesta Barrage was built in Bangladesh, it was constructed by Bangladeshi personnel and the government deliberately excluded foreign experts. The idea was that the personnel, thus trained and skilled during the construction oftfiejeesta
Barrage, would be utilised to construct the Ganges Barrage in the country. However nothing seems to have advanced so far on the Ganges Barrage project.
The Ministry ofWater Resources of the government of Bangladesh has at various times commissioned prefeasibility studies for barrages and associated canals at locations on both the Ganges and Brahmaputra rivers. Experts say that the studies have recommended works on water utilisationofrivers. If the water works would be in place, it would have led to increased amount ofwater into the
North Central, Northwest, and South West areas of Bangladesh.
Experts say that the government of Bangladesh also undertook studies that came to be known as the New Line, a proposal to build barrages on the Brahmaputra and the Ganges within Bangladesh and link them with a canal further south. This would have all owed both Bangladesh and India to access all the waters of the Ganges and Brahmaputra. The proposal did not proceed.
• Another proposal, the Farakka-Paksi-Mawa Complex (FPMC), was suggested by a foreign expert, J.SA Brichieri-Colombi, of University of London. The proposal was designed to allow both Bangladesh and India to abstract their legitimate share of water from the main rivers, while avoiding some of the problems raised with other proposals. Ute designer thought it a "win-win" solution for both countries. The proposal, according to the designer, would have benefited Bangladesh as foliotvs:
• Irrigation supply to areas short of groundwater in North West and SouthWbstofBangladesh:
• Salinity control in South West and SouthCentral areas in Bangladesh;
• BridgesoverPadma(Ganges);
• Freshwater to Sundarbans in Bangladesh;
• Water supply to Dhaka;
• Improved navigation on main riversinandaround Dhaka;
• Erosion control in vicinity for barrages; and
• Drainagepumpinginwetseason.
India, on the other hand, would have access to 50 percent share of the Brahmaputra for use and freshwater to Sunderbans in West Bengal. The FPMC did not proceed.
The days of adequate supply of water have gone. Fresh water availability is a matter of concern because of the growth of population. According to UN estimate, by 2050, Bangladesh's population is expected to grow to 200 million. Unless Bangladesh seriously undertakes water utilisation plans, it will be left high and dry.
Bangladesh is endowed with an adequate number of water resources experts in the country and their assistance needs to be sought at an urgent level. There is no room for complacency or sentimentality. Many Bangladeshi experts have suggested creating a national body for Integrated Water Resource Management and Development to advise the government on strategies to address, among others, the optimal utilisation of land and water in the country.
Meanwhile, steps for water conservation and avoidance of waste are to be undertaken pending the suggested water intervention projects. Recycling and reuse ofwateristhe way to go for the future. Farming technology on drought-prone areas lias to be introduced. Awareness of appropriate choice of crops among farmers is to be disseminated and optimum use of available water is to be made.
Conclusion
Although accusing India of diverting water unilaterally from common rivers makes sense, it may not by itself resolve Bangladesh's problems. It seems dint Bangladesh needs to be self-critical of its own actions during the last 33 years on water utilisation from its rivers. As a sovereign country, Bangladesh has to stand on Its own legs and consider relevant water projects for mitigating floods and droughts in the country.
The bottom line is unless Bangladesh does for itself, no country will come to our aid for a situation in which Bangladesh has appeared to have overlooked its national interests.
Wb live in a world of hard reality. Self-interest rules the day. According to the British Prime Minister Lord Palmerston, there are no permanent friends or enemies. What is permanent is self-interest and that has to be pursued vigorously.
Barrister Hanjn ur Rashid is a former Bangladesh AmbassadorloUjoUN,Geneva. .
***Although accusing India of diverting water unilaterally from common rivers makes sense, it may not by itself resolve Bangladesh's problems. It seems that Bangladesh needs to be self-critical of its own actions during the last 33 years on water utilisation from its rivers. As a sovereign country, Bangladesh has to stand on its own legs and consider relevant water projects for mitigating floods and droughts in the country.***