---By Prof. Dr. J. U. Ahmad

International Farakka Committee (IFC) alongwith IFC Bangladesh Co-ordination Committee and the North American Long March Committee jointly organized a Long March (3-4 March, 2005) and a Grand Rally on 4 March, 2005 at Chilmari Bandar (River-port), Kurigram District, on the bank of the river Brahmaputra. About 500 thousand of people voiced with the slogans ‘Save our Rivers, Save Bangladesh’ from different walks of life, irrespective of political believe from all over the country joint the Grand Rally. A good number of expatriate water-righteous activists from all over the world, particularly from North America also attended the Programme.

A 15-points Chilmari Declaration was adopted at the Grand Rally. The movement of the International Farakka Committee against the unilateral upstream water withdrawal by India has been able to create awareness in Bangladesh and other parts of the world.
As an on-going activity, International Farakka Committee is organizing a two-day international conference on ‘Upstream water Diversion: A disaster for Bangladesh’ at the Institution of Engineers Bangladesh on 4-5 January, 2006. Eminent scientists, policy planners, intellectuals and journalists will be participating in the conference for deliberations and interactions of ideas. Leading political leaders from different political parties have expressed their willingness to join the conference and will express their views on this agenda of utmost national importance.

The eco-disaster and untold miseries already inflicted on Bangladesh by upstream water diversion through Farakka Barrage will be multiplied by thousand times, if the on-going Inter Basin River Link project of India is not abandoned. This project is equivalent to many ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’. Sense of justice and eco-consciousness is invoking in the region, which might force the Indian Govt. for shelving or modifying the project. We believe that a Regional River Commission comprising of all countries of the river basin under the supervision of the United Nations will be able to usher a new era of cooperation and prosperity in the region.

I do hope that documentation on ‘Upstream Water Diversion: A Disaster for Bangladesh’ would provide valuable information and would be able to motivate all for participating in the movement against Upstream Water Diversion on which depends the existence of Bangladesh. I would like to thank the authors and contributors for their valuable contributions. We sincerely believe that we will be able to overcome this impending danger by forming a great national unity.

Water Diversion by Upper-Riparian Country of Bangladesh
Dr. Abdul Malik
Former Professor of Chemistry,
Dhaka University &Lecturer in Chemistry,
Cardiff University. Joint convenor, Save the Bangladesh Rivers Campaign in the UK).
E-mail address: kmamalik@aol.com

The unilateral withdrawal of water by India from several rivers that also flow through Bangladesh has caused extreme concerns in Bangladesh. In fact, this particular issue has been the main reason for Bangladesh to question India’s positive attitude and goodwill towards her eastern neighbour. While India is hailed outside for democracy and economic development, her policies towards the smaller neighbours are hardly scrutinised and criticised by world media and western powers. That India is pursuing a ‘water policy’ that denies the rights of a lower riparian country and causes irreparable damage to the lives and environment does not get enough media and diplomatic attention. Ironically, many stories fed by Indian sources in international media try to portray Bangladesh as pursuing anti-India policies and posing a threat to regional stability.

The greatest harm India has done to Bangladesh is by the construction of the Farakka Barrage on the Ganges river, only 11 miles upstream from where it enters into Bangladesh. The Barrage was constructed unilaterally to divert the main flow of an international river without ever consulting the lower riparian Bangladesh and thus violating the legitimate rights of a sovereign country. India professed a policy of ‘friendship’ towards Bangladesh, visibly so during the latter’s crucial fight for independence from Pakistan in 1971, but the inauguration and formal commissioning of the Farakka Barrage, apparently as an innocent water resource management, in mid April, 1975, shook the very foundation of that ‘friendship’. That India does not wish to honour her international obligations to ‘smaller and militarily weaker’ neighbours became very clear to the Bangladeshi people and this created an atmosphere of mistrust against India.

Over the years, it became increasingly clear that Farakka has caused immense and irreversible damage to the river Padma (the Ganges is known by this name in Bangladesh) and all its tributaries, to the soil, environment, ecology, river navigation and fisheries throughout south Bangladesh. It has silted up many rivers, lowered the underground water level, and affected the lives and livelihood about 40 million people. It has also increased the salinity in the southern coastal areas and is threatening the very existence of the Sundarbons described as the largest mangrove in the world. According to an expert analysis, Bangladesh has suffered an annual loss of $3 billion in economic terms due to the adverse effects of the Farakka Dam. Yet, India has never accepted any responsibility for the damage Farakka has caused to Bangladesh, nor has it tried to enter into any meaningful negotiation with the affected party. On the contrary, any Bangladeshi complaint or protest against the Dam has been construed as ‘anti-India’ policy by the ‘ungrateful’ Bangladesh.

In addressing different problems between India and Bangladesh, especially the water issue, the former has always resorted to deception and diversionary tactics.

For example, the Indian water resources minister Priya Ranjan Dasmunsi declared in Dhaka last September that India will never implement any river-linking project (RLP) that would adversely affect Bangladesh’s interests. He further said, ‘the Brahmaputra part of the river-linking project will not be implemented in the next 2,000 years!’ (New Age, September 21, 2005). To allay Bangladesh’s concerns and fears, he said that they are not incorporating the Ganges and the Brahmaputra in the RLP project ‘as it will harm some Indian states, including Bihar and West Bengal, and then the neighbour, Bangladesh.’ On the Tipaimukh dam project, Dasmunsi told journalists that India would consult Bangladesh before implementing it. It was also revealed that there was no development in sharing of the Teesta water as India showed indifference to discuss the issue with Bangladesh.

Clearly, Dasmunsi tried to evade the real issues of major concern to Bangladesh by making diversionary comments. Similar comments to the effect that ‘the RLP would not affect Bangladesh’, ‘Bangladesh would be consulted when appropriate’, or ‘Bangladesh is making unnecessary complaints about it’, etc, have been made on many previous occasions by the Indian High Commissioner in Dhaka and many of the Indian officials. But in reality, the RLP has already been approved by the Indian government and some of its components in the upper Ganges region are currently being implemented. That India has been carrying out the project keeping Bangladesh in the dark is a clear violation of all International River Laws and environment laws. When Mr Dasmunsi says that the project would not be implemented in 2000 years, he is clearly trying to fool the Bangladeshi public. How does he know beforehand what may or may not happen to the project if and when he is no longer the water resources minister? Moreover, if India does not really want to proceed with the full implementation of the project, why does his government keep everything secret from Bangladesh government?

Dasmunsi’s comments on the Tipaimukh multipurpose dam on the river Borak, upstream the Surma, Kushiara and the Meghna in Bangladesh, are equally misleading. He said that Tipaimukh Dam would only be a hydroelectric project, that it is now at the planning stage and that Bangladesh has nothing to worry about since it is not a barrage to withdraw water for irrigation. But the fact is: the Dam is currently being constructed (under heavy security cordon by the BSF) and it will surely affect the water flow in the Surma and other rivers in Sylhet and Comilla regions of Bangladesh, with devastating consequences. Why does the Indian minister make statement that is clearly untrue?

The Indian government and ruling elites seem to be guided by the idea that it has sufficient economic, diplomatic and military power to do as they like in relation to smaller neighbours including Bangladesh. But this is a very dangerous idea, which ultimately would bring disaster and ruin to the whole eastern region of the sub-continent. The people of Bangladesh may be divided on many issues, but on the water issue they are all united and determined to resist India’s attempts at depriving Bangladesh of her legitimate interests and claim to the water from trans-boundary rivers. The reason is simple: without water, Bangladesh would not survive as a viable society.

Bangladesh is clearly disadvantaged in bargaining with a reluctant India, mainly because of its smaller size and not having matching diplomatic and military clouts. So what can Bangladesh do to bring India to negotiating table and what are the options available to deal with the impending disaster that would surely result from the unilateral withdrawal and diversion of waters from trans-boundary rivers?

The peninsular part of the project involves the rivers that lie wholly within India and, therefore, it is argued that this would not affect the interests of Bangladesh. But this is only partly correct, since sources from which water would be diverted to the south also includes the Ganges that flows also into Bangladesh. Any diversion of water from the upper Ganges region is bound to cause water shortage in the lower Ganges including Bihar, West Bengal and Bangladesh. One does not need to be an expert to understand this consequence of water diversion from the upper Ganges region.

The Indian planners also understand this. That is why they propose to divert water from the Bramaputra from a point in western Assam (before the river flows into Bangladesh) to augment water flow in the lower Ganges that sustains life in vast areas of Bihar and West Bengal. If vast amount of water is withdrawn from the upper Ganges without an alternative source of water in Bihar and West Bengal, there would be tremendous political backlash against the central government in these two populous Indian states. There lies the rationale for linking the Brahamaputra with the Ganges in West Bengal. This part of the project is absolutely important for India to save the Hoogly and Bhagirathi rivers and also the port city of Kolkata.

It is to be noted that about eight years ago, soon after the Awami League government came into power in Bangladesh in 1996, India proposed to construct a link canal from the lower Bramaputra to the lower Ganges in West Bengal via several northern districts of Bangladesh. It was argued from the Indian side and their apologists in Bangladesh and abroad that this link canal would solve all the water problems in Bangladesh particularly those arising from the diversion of the Ganges water at the Farakka point. But this idea was rejected by Bangladesh because of the potential internal discord and conflict it would generate within the country.

Obviously, the water issue is not simply going away to improve relations between Bangladesh and India. The government, media and people in general do not wish any harm to India, but can anyone blame them if they point out the disastrous effects the Indian river linking project would cause to Bangladesh?

Bangladesh has been requesting the Indian government again and again for full information on the link project and to sit together for any plan that may require regional or international approach. But India has never responded positively to Bangladesh; it has only issued ‘assurances’ without ever trying to honour the commitment. Unfortunately, many Indian policy makers and influential media people have even branded Bangladesh as ‘anti-Indian’ simply because Bangladesh has expressed dissatisfaction with Indian policies on different occasions.

Whatever is said to the contrary, the Indian rulers consider Bangladesh something less than a sovereign state and this state of mind set is widespread among all political party leaders whether they belong to the BJP-type ‘right’, Congress-type ‘moderate’ or CPM-type left. All of them consider India as the ‘big brother’ and Bangladesh as the ‘little brother’. They seem to hold the idea that Bangladesh does not have any right even to protest against their policies particularly on the water issue. That is why the Joint River Commission meetings are repeatedly delayed by India on false excuses and no solution is found after years of promises and assurances.

On the water issue, cards are set against Bangladesh since it is the lower riparian country and does not have the economic, diplomatic and military muscles to match those of India. So what can Bangladesh really do to protect its interests? In my opinion, there are only two options.

Option one, perhaps the easiest, is to rely on India’s ‘goodwill’ and ‘sweet talk’. India may do whatever it likes to suit and serve its own interests, even if that policy means reducing Bangladesh to some kind of wasteland. India would be allowed to divert water from the Brahamaputra in the north to the Indian Ganges in the south by link canals through northern Bangladesh. Whatever government is in Dhaka would be considered as ‘friendly’ by New Delhi, but the country and its people would suffer for eternity. Clearly, this is what India wants, but Bangladesh must reject this approach since this is a case of unconditional surrender of the country’s sovereignty and national interests.

The second option is to stand firm for the legitimate rights of Bangladesh to the waters of international rivers and expose India’s hegemonic attitude to the neighbours. Let it be known to the Indian rulers that Bangladesh is unwilling to die without a fight for its survival. This policy may provoke the Indian rulers to adopt more aggressive policies regarding Bangladesh, but let there be no mistake: it would not be intimidated by India’s military might either. While India has the military might to cause sabotage, damage infrastructure and even to occupy some land areas, it cannot win any aggressive war in Bangladesh, the people of Bangladesh will surely fight back with whatever means possible. Since the military option is full of unforeseen dangers and wars, Bangladesh must continue attempts at reaching a diplomatic solution.

Since a purely ‘bilateral’ approach as advocated by India has not been working for more than three decades, Bangladesh should raise the issue more vigorously in the SAARC and other international forums including the OIC and UN and convince international public opinion that they must help Bangladesh obtain its due share of waters from international rivers and what India is doing to Bangladesh is contrary to all international laws and civilised norms. We must argue that the water problem is not only India’s or Bangladesh’s problem, there are other parties more or less affected or likely to be affected by the Indian plan. Involvement of Nepal and Bhutan in discussions and negotiations is especially important for reaching a reasonable solution. Involvement of China in the negotiation process is also required since the Brahamaputra river originates in the northern Himalayan range and flows about 800 miles within Chinese territory before it enters into north east India. If at a future date, China itself decides unilaterally to divert the Brahamaputra river away from India and Bangladesh, what would we do? A regional approach accepted by all the parties and guaranteed by the international community (UN, for example) is the best way for resolving the water dispute between India and its neighbours including Bangladesh.

Historic Perspectives of the Indian River-linking Project : Upstream control of water in the G-B-M Basin and its potential impacts on Bangladesh

Md. Khalequzzaman, Ph.D.,
Dept. of Geology & Physics, Lock Haven University,
Lock Haven, PA 17745, USA
e-mail: mkhalequ@lhup.edu

There has been much talk and discussion in the news media about the proposed Indian river-linking project over the last several months both in Bangladesh and India. The representatives of the Govt. of Bangladesh, including the Prime Minister, voiced their concerns and made their views clear on this issue. The message is loud and clear - the people of Bangladesh oppose the unilateral decision by the Govt. of India to divert water from the Brahmaputra to the Ganges via artificial canals. Much has been discussed about the possible adverse consequences on the environment and economy of Bangladesh that will result should the project is implemented as proposed. This is the largest trans-boundary and inter-basin water control project ever. Based on the knowledge about river dynamics, the geologic roles rivers play in formations of floodplain and delta plain, maintaining complex ecosystems and sustainability of agricultural and other economic endeavors, it is safe to conclude that, should this project realize the well being of Bangladesh will be jeopardized. Whether India has the means and popular support needed to implement a mega-project of this magnitude remained to be seen.

In the recent Joint River Commission's (JRC) meetings held in New Delhi in October the Bangladeshi delegates wanted to discuss the proposed river-linking project in detail. However, the Indian delegates insisted that the proposal was just a proposal, and it was premature to discuss anything in detail. As a result, the issue did not find its place in the list of regular agenda, but was included as a "miscellaneous" item in the agenda instead. The Bangladeshi delegates took satisfaction in their accomplishment of being able to pursue the Indian delegates to record the issue in the meetings' agenda. Since the last JRC meetings the issue of Indian river-linking has fizzled out of the Bangladeshi news media. However, this issue is too important to set aside for long.

Although the Govt. of India insists that the proposal is in its infancy, and refuses to discuss details of the proposal with its Bangladeshi counterparts, the reality indicates otherwise. This is not a new proposal, neither it is in its infancy. To better understand the background of the proposal we need to take a close look at chronology of historic events associated with this plan. Some proponents of the Indian river-linking proposal (for example, Dr. Pingle, Chairman, Public Policy Area, Administrative Staff College of India and Dr. S. Kalyanaraman, Director, Sarasvati Nadi Shodh Prakalp are among such proponents) argue that the proposal to create a network of rivers and canals was made in meticulous detail way back in 1881, by Arthur Cotton during the British rule and that the Indian Govt. is just going back to the original idea with a few modifications. However, what they don't mention is the fact that Arthur Cotton's idea was rejected by the then government and by water resources specialists on scientific and technical merits. They also overlook the fact that the British Govt. ruled India for additional 66 years after the submission of Cotton's proposal, but the authority did not take any initiatives to implement the proposal. It is worthwhile to mention that, our understanding of the hydrodynamic processes and the intricate nature of ecosystems supported by rivers, which would be affected by implementation of such a mega-project is much different than that of Arthur Cotton back in the 19th century. Therefore, this argument does not hold much water.

A note on the National Water Grid was earlier prepared by the then Central Water & Power Commission (around 1972) of India, and three possible alignments for the Ganga-Cauvery link along with other links were brought out. Further studies were made by Dr. K.L. Rao who advocated one of the alignments for the Ganga-Cauvery link along with a few other links including the Brahmaputra and Ganga Link to transfer 1800 to 3000 cumec (cubic meters per second) with a lift of 12 to 15 m. These amounts correspond to 63,558 cfs and 105,930 cfs(cubic feet per second). The average flow the Brahmaputra during lean season the average lowest flow of the Brahmaputra is 176,550 cfs. It is very easy to see how much water will be left in Brahmaputra after Indian proposed withdrawal during the dry months. According to the current proposal, India wants to divert 173 BCM (billion cubic meters) per year from the Brahmaputra, amounting to 193,703 cfs, which is greater than the total flow in the Brahmaputra during the lean season.

The Indian original proposal form 1980s included construction of a 209-mile long link canal through Bangladesh to connect the Brahmaputra and the Ganges. Since they failed to convince the Govt. of Bangladesh to accept their proposal at various JRC meetings over the last couple of decades, they have modified the proposal. The most recent revised proposal shows the position of this link canal through the "goose neck" of India ( i.e. connecting Assam and West Bengal).

The then Ministry of Irrigation (now Water Resources) formulated a National Perspective for Water Development in August 1980. The broad approach adopted in the National Perspective is as follows: "The perspective envisages developments within the frame-work of all the existing agreements between or amongst the States within the country as well as existing treaties with the neighboring countries". Bangladesh too believes that waters in all common rivers need to be shared in the context of the Ganges Water Sharing Treaty of 1996, which clearly states that "both Governments agree to conclude water sharing Treaties/Agreements with regard to other common rivers". The expression "other common rivers" includes not only Brahmaputra but also other common rivers that flow through Bangladesh from India. It is very clear from this Article #9 of the Treaty that both countries are obligated to conclude water-sharing agreements of all common rivers. Nothing is left vague with regard to the sharing of common rivers of the two countries. According to this Treaty, India is supposed to inform of any project or plan taken in the upper reaches that have potential to adversely impact the environment and economy of Bangladesh. However, India decided unilaterally to plan the river-linking mega-project without ever consulting with Bangladesh. India refuses to include any third country in the discussion. India has signed numerous bi-lateral treaties with other countries, including China and Nepal.

The National Perspective Plan comprises of two components, namely, Peninsular Rivers Development and Himalayan Rivers Development. The list of proposed water transfer links (a total of 21) under the Himalayan river development component includes the following links that of Interest to Bangladesh: Brahmaputra - Ganga (Alternative - I), Brahmaputa - Ganga (Alternative - II), Brahmaputa - Ganga (Alternative - III), Farakka - Sunderbans, Farakka - Durgapur. Details about these links are not publicly available.

According to the information provided by the Ministry of Water Resources of India, the Govt. of India has considered it necessary that the scientific development of water resources should be taken up considering river basin/sub-basin as a unit. Bangladesh also proposed to develop an integrated water resources management plan that include all co-riparian countries (India, Bhutan, Nepal, China, and Bangladesh) in the Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna basin. Specifically, Bangladesh proposed to build hydel plants and water retention reservoirs in India and Nepal during many of the Joint River Commission (JRC) meetings in the past.

India of the opinion that maximizing the availability of utilizable water may involve transfer of water from surplus basin to water-short basin in the overall interest of the country, to give much needed relief and distribute the benefits more evenly. Integrated development of water resources of both surface and groundwater, can optimize benefits resulting in economical use of the available water. To that end the Govt. of India formed the National Commission for Integrated Water Resources Development Plan of India, which has submitted its partial report to the Government of India on December 1,1999.

The most important question that needs to be addressed is whether or not there is any "surplus" or "unused" water in Brahmaputra River. The concept of "surplus" or "unused" water is an ironic one. The water that flows in Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna (G-B-M) basin is the reason why there exists the deltaic country called Bangladesh to start with. The sediments laid down by these rivers built the delta over millions of years that we call Bangladesh today. Needless to say that there is a very complex ecosystem, including the Sunderbans, that is supported by the freshwater flow in these rivers. Any diversion of water also means proportional diversion of sediments. Any lack of sediment flux to the delta and coastal plains will cause accelerated drowning the coastal region in the face of rising sea-level. In essence, it is already happening due to the impact of Farakka Barrage and will certainly accelerate if other barrages ( e.g. the proposed Ganges Barrage, and Mowa Barrage). So, before we can decide what is the equitable share of India, we really need to take a close look at the natural dynamics of these rivers and the functions they perform.

According to a memorandum dated the 13th December, 2002 the Govt. of India has formed the National Water Development Agency (NWDA) as a Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 in 1982 to carry out the detailed studies and detailed surveys and investigations and to prepare feasibility reports of the links under the National Perspective Plan. NWDA has, after carrying out detailed studies, identified 30 links for preparation of feasibility reports and has prepared feasibility reports of 6 such links. The various basin States have expressed divergent views about the studies and feasibility reports prepared by NWDA. With a view to bringing about a consensus among the States and provide guidance on norms of appraisal of individual projects and modalities for project funding etc. the Central Government hereby sets up a Task Force with Shri Suresh Prabhu, MP of Lok Shobha as its Chairman.

According to a report by the BBC, a feasibility study is scheduled for completion in 2005, but given the concerns of other countries and Indian states it could take longer. Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee is very keen to pursue the project. In his Independence Day address this year, Mr Vajpayee said the scheme would "free India from the curse of floods and droughts". He promised that work on it would start by the end of the year.

There has been a new religious twist to this saga. Apparently, the archaeologists in India have discovered the existence of the mythic river called the Sarasvati in northern India. According to the information available on website for the Sarasvati, over 5000 years ago, the river flowed over a distance of over 1600 kms draining the North-west Bharat, through the states of Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, Punjab, Rajasthan and Gujarat, to reach the Sindhu Sagara at Prabhas Patan (Somnath) as described in the Mahabharata and other ancient texts. Tectonic and river-migration causes for the desiccation of the river about 3500 years ago have been established using satellite image analyses, geomorphological studies, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre findings based on tritium analysis of abundant ground-water resources discovered in the Sarasvati River Basin in the middle of the Rajasthan Marusthali desert, which will enable the construction of over 1 million tube-wells for potable water, after recharging the groundwater aquifers using surface channels of the reborn Sarasvati river which is an integral part of the project to interlink national rivers of Bharat. On April 14, 2003, the President of India Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam has invited experts associated with River Sarasvati researches to Rashtrapati Bhavan for discussions. A delegation led by Dr. S. Kalyanaraman, Director, Sarasvati Nadi Shodh Prakalp and Shri Haribhau Vaze, National Organizing Secretary, Akhil Bharatiya Itihasa Sankalana Yojana met him and explained the Sarasvati Darshan exhibits comprising satellite images and archaeological artefacts. The President expressed his desire to visit Adi Badri to see the work in progress to ensure the flow of River Sarasvati all 365 days of the year for the benefit of pilgrims visiting tirthasthanas and to promote command area of irrigation in the region for the benefit of millions of farmers. The President also promised to consider the request made by the delegation to bring back the Sarasvati Pratimaa which was originally installed in Bhojashala at Dhar and now held in the British Museum.

It is evident from the chronology of events as described earlier that the idea of Indian river-linking plan is not a new one, and that the Govt. of India is relentlessly working on the targeted completion by the year 2016. In the context of the historic developments and the past experiences in dealing with India with regard to water sharing of the trans-boundary rivers, it is important that Bangladesh acts fast with its international allies, including the people and environmentalists from India and Nepal, to stop further attempts by the Govt. of India to unilaterally decide the fate of millions of people in Bangladesh and Nepal.

The people of Bangladesh, India, and Nepal living in the Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna basin share common history, heritage, and friendship that go back to the time immemorial. India as the largest country in the basin has the responsibility to protect the interests of her own people, as well as the interests of all her neighbors. The Govt. of India should take initiatives to develop an integrated water resources development plan based on the principles of equity and respect of her neighbors, which in turn will strengthen the regional stability, security, peace, and prosperity.

http://www.e-mela.com/Bangladesh/River_Ind...an20031108.html

Bangladesh is a lower riparian country located within flood plains of three great rivers, the Ganges, the Brahmaputra and the Meghna. There are many tributaries and distributors of these rivers and in total 57 rivers pass through the country. These rivers drain a total area of 1.72 million square kilometers in India, China, Nepal, Bhutan and Bangladesh. Over 90 percent of the catchments area for the rivers lies outside Bangladesh. As a result, huge inflows of water enter the country, over which Bangladesh has no control. The lack of control is a critical problem because Bangladesh has an agrarian economy dependent on water, and at different times within a year, Bangladesh has either too much or too little of that. Flood control, drainage and irrigation projects (FCD/I) are designed and based on this water to establish conditions for the adoption and protection of HYV crops from flooding, erosion and saline water intrusion. Management of FCD/1 projects as such is largely the management of water resources and is vibrant to transboundary water issues. The impacts of these issues are well known and clearly visible on the two major FCD/I projects of the country.

The Ganages-Kobadak Project, a FCD/I project, pioneering the modern irrigated agriculture and flood management in Bangladesh designed to source irrigation from the river Ganges has eventually become vulnerable to sharing water. The project was designed in the early 1950's as the first stage of full development of the Ganges including a barrage while the water levels in the river were significantly higher as there was less abstraction upstream. The water level at sourcing irrigation for the project is determined by the level and flow in the Ganges and the head loss in the intake channel. From a comparative study of the average monthly discharge data of the Ganges at Hardinge Bridge it is observed that the dry season flows reduced alarmingly since diversion upstream. The lowest average monthly discharge is found to be 316 cumec in March 1993, against the pre-diversion average monthly discharge of 2213 cumec for the same month. During the year 1992-93, the lowest average monthly discharge was 544 cumec in February 1993 against the pre-diversion monthly average flow of 2519 cumec for the same month. From minimum water level and discharge of the river Ganges at Hardinge Bridge for the period from 1974 to 2003 it is observed that due to diversion minimum discharge has reduced to as low as 270 cumec in April 1993 as against a minimum discharge of 2081 in April 1974. The water level has also been recorded as low as 4.22 m in April 1993 as against a minimum value of 6.70 m in March 1974. Dry season flow of the Gorai, a major distributary of the Ganges, has also been seriously affected due to low flow in the Ganges. In a recent survey it has been revealed that about 10,385 shallow tube-wells have been installed within the project for abstraction of ground water to augment the water shortage in the source, the river Ganges. The sourcing irrigation for the Ganges–Kobadak Project has thus far been hinged with the availability of water level and discharge in Ganges under a treaty of sharing water by the upstream and downstream countries. The operational performance of the project as such has been descending; the sourcing irrigation being vulnerable to sharing water of the Ganges resulting adverse impacts on its dependent area.

The Ganges by itself is noted for massive discharge and sediment load. The continual erosion and sedimentation of this river created numerous surface features and also sufferings for the inhabitants on its banks. The excessive lowering of the discharge due to upstream diversion during low flow season has reduced the depth of flow hampering navigation and accelerated the silting up of the bed. The low discharge in the Ganges has created enormous problems for the Gorai and Gorai dependent areas. The hydraulic geometry of the river has undergone significant changes creating problems in the distribution of sediment load. As a consequence, the shifting character and meander parameters has also undergone significant changes.

Similarly, the use of Teesta river water for irrigated agriculture had been conceived back in 1935 and rolled down till the Govt. of Bangladesh and the Govt. of India in its 25th meeting of the Joint Rivers Commission on 20 July, 1983 reached an adhoc allocation agreement according to which India was to get 39 percent, Bangladesh 36 percent and remaining 25 percent was to be reserved for reallocation later, after further study. Without having this agreement in place, the amount of dry season waters on Bangladesh side gradually decreased and ended up in getting only 59 m3/s in January 1999. The dry season water flow now varied from 22 to 34 m3/s in January 2001 against the requirement of 227 m3/s to irrigate 540,000 ha. of irrigable land. During dry season every year, the barrage at Gojoldoba at the upstream in India is kept closed for diverting the water to Mohanonda River for irrigation. This has turned the mighty river teesta into a virtual streamlet causing emergence of numerous shoals bringing changes in its hydraulic characteristics. The riverbeds of Teesta have turned into crop lands in several locations. The withdrawal of water from Teesta river at the upstream has been causing havoc in its basin in Teesta project area, severely affecting the ecology and economy.

The up-coming 1500 MW hydro-electric power plant project at Tipaimukh in India building dam across the Barak river has been of another threat to north-eastern part of Bangladesh and concerns for the Govt. The unilateral move to construct dam over the Barak will have adverse impacts on Surma and Kushshiara rivers in Bangladesh. The north-eastern haor ecology, the Meghna basin and the estuary will change its hydraulic and hydrological characteristics severely impacting the livelihood as well. The groundwater basin will deplete. Threats will be not only to water for the habitat but also for this time, to habitat for water. A study is currently being carried out for a comprehensive haor management by national experts who may incorporate assessment of quantitative impacts under different scenarios one of which may include the Indian Tipaimukh project situation as one of the alternatives.

Management of FCD/I projects is responsive to issues surrounding transboundary rivers, as to upstream withdrawal, water sharing treaties, sediment transportation, pollution, drainage, detention and diversion of waters. Transboundary talk-shop should therefore begin meaning business; not just open-ended talking as usual.

(The Writer is Chief Engineer, Bangladesh Water Development Board)

http://www.bangladeshobserveronline.com/new/2004/12/12/editorial.htm

Tipaimukh Dam to spell disaster: Indian expert
BSS, NEW DELHI, December 3

Ref: http://www.newagebd.com/front.html#3

A leading Indian researcher, who is attending a national convention on Inter-linking of rivers being held at the auditorium of the Gandhi Peace Foundation in Delhi under the auspices of the National Alliance for People's Movement, has said that the Tipaimukh dam would spell disaster for Manipur.

Dr Roy Laifungbam, the Chief of the Implah based Centre for Organization, research and Education, said that the dam would cause a disaster in Manipur while parts of Assam, particularly its Kachar district would be affected while it would also have a marginal negative impact on Mizoram.

India is set to build the Tipaimukh dam on the tri-junction of Manipur, Mizoram and Assam, on the river Barak with the declared objective of power generation.

Roy said the entire valley and its cultural sites, ancestral spiritual, and holy places would go under water denying the people of their cultural roots and identity of thousands of years.

"This will be a cultural destruction," he said.

The indigenous people, rooted to the land, would be displaced, he apprehended.

He said that normal life in Manipur was bound to be completely disrupted by the Tipaimukh dam as about 12,000 square kilometres of Manipur, out of its total area 22,000 square kilometres, forms the Barak catchments.

"What we ask for we do not get, we get what we do not want," he said.

The people of Manipur do not want the dam as they do not need it, he argued saying that Manipur does not have industries to need such a big hydro project.

Rather, he said, the people of Manipur need micro projects that would generate employment and solve their problems.

But over the last 55 years the demand of the people remained unmet for the last 55 years, he said.

West Bengal experts oppose river interlinking project
By Staff Reporter Daily New Nation
Ref: http://nation.ittefaq.com/artman/publish/article_12619.shtml

A national seminar in 'Interlinking of Rivers in India: Myths and Reality' organized by the Environmental Engineering Division of the Institution of Engineers (India), West Bengal State Centre, at its auditorium on 8 and 9 September strongly opposed the River Interlinking Project initiated by the previous BJP-led government.

According to a message received from Kolkata, in view of fierce controversy over the project or concept, the West Bengal State Centre of the Institution of Engineers (India) strongly felt that there should be a national debate over the issue among all sections of society. The distinguished academicians, engineers, geologists, geographers, activists and Government officials participated in the deliberations and more than two hundred delegates were present in the auditorium.

The seminar was inaugurated by Ganesh Mondal, Minister in Charge, Irrigation and Waterways Directorate, West Bengal and keynote address was delivered by Prof. Jayanta Bandyopadhyay of Indian Institute of Management.

Both of them were very critical of the project. The Minister disagreed with the concept that inter-basin transfer of water can solve the problem of flood and drought rather, he opined, it can lead to water-war among the States. He also denied that 'there is excess water in the Ganga basin'.

Prof. Bandyopadhyay critically reviewed the objectives of the project and concluded that there is hardly any rationale to incur such monumental expenditure (US$ 120 billion) while there are other viable alternatives to combat the challenges. He emphasised that there is hardly any justification to adopt such a mega project to ensure future food security or the supply of drinking water to the drought prone areas. There are farmer-centred, eco-friendly and cost effective options to combat the twin challenges. The replacement of drought resistant crops by water-intensive crops in low rainfall areas may be suicidal.

The desalinisation of sea-water may be cheaper option for supplying drinking water in coastal areas, Prof. Bandyopadhyay added.

Biswatosh Sarkar, Secretary to the State Government in the Irrigation and Waterways Department narrated briefly four links affecting the State and observed that substantial chunk of habitation and tea gardens will be disturbed putting serious strain on the State's economy and environment.

Medha Patkar of Narmada Banchao Andolon and National Alliance of People's Movement, who addressed a special session of the seminar, questioned the diktat from the Chief Justice as well as the President of India, and explained that without completion of all impact assessment-social-environmental-economic-financial and with no clearance from the sanctioning authorities, ILR can only be a concept, but not a project.

The unprecedented expensive project will certainly bring in foreign investment with investors claiming right to water which is corporatisation and privatisation that is being challenged. The common villagers living on the land and harnessing it along with water do not get benefit in spite of their sacrifice, since just distribution of benefits is largely unequal in large dams and projects.

The decentralised use of water with other resources would have gone a long way if the community were granted the first right to those resources. She asserted that if there were no shift in the paradigm pursued till this date, the only alternative would be both struggle and reconstruction.

As regards hydro-power she demanded that largest unit based energy resource survey and integrated planning with all sources of energy should be under consideration. The reduction of transmission and distribution losses with rural employment opportunity created will be the solution.

Technical sessions of the seminar were addressed by eminent scholars like Samar Bagchi, Dr. Kalyan Bandyopadhyay, Prof Manas Bandyopadhyay, Dr.Kalyan Rudra, Subrata Sinha and Rajkapur Sharma. The speakers were unanimous that the altering the delicate hydrological balance set by nature would surely impair the ecological security and consequence may be disastrous.

The Brahmaputra-Ganga-Subranrekha link would intercept all south-flowing and east-flowing rivers of West Bengal and there by invite the problem of drainage congestion. This may also impair the existing balance between sweet and saline water regime in the delta. The project was conceived on a myth that Ganga-Brahmaputra basin carries excess water that flows into the sea and thus 'wasted'. This contravenes the basic ecological principle that everything in Nature is perfectly balanced and no component is excess or deficit therein. An induced hydrological equity is neither possible nor desirable.

The experts said that the project does not take into account the ecological security and the delicate hydrological balance of the Ganga-Brahmaputra delta. Nor any heed was paid to the demand of huge population living in largest delta of the World. Even the question of Indo-Bangaldesh relationship over the sharing of water of Ganga, Brahmaputra and Teesta was denied. Since 54 rivers are trans-boundary in nature and flows into Bangladesh from West Bengal and other neighbouring states, the Government of India should cohere with our neighboring State (Bangladesh) on the issue of water management.

The seminar referred to the Principle 2 of Rio declaration adopted in 1992 which states:

"States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental and developmental policies, and the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction."

Experts attending the seminar observed, the hydraulic regimes of the different basins would be drastically modified by installing structural barriers and river lifting components. The diversion of sweet water from Ganga-Brahmaputra basin may allow the saline water wedge to ingress further inland causing a serious ecological imbalance in the delta. Since there would be reduction of flow in one river and increase in another, the environment of the riparian areas will go through vigorous shaking and aspirations of the project may not be a reality.

"In view of the opinion expressed by experts this Institute strongly feels the paradigm of water management should not be guided by reductionist vision of arithmetical hydrology. All technical details of the project or concept should be available in the public domain so that there may be more debate over the issue before it is accepted or rejected. The water management plan should not be dictated by any apex body rather it should emerge out of consensus among echelons of the society," the seminar concluded.

Courtesy by The New Nation