Bangladeshi experts have correctly pointed out that contrary to international legal principles, such Indian inter-linking of rivers and diversion of water flow in the upper riparian areas at the cost of the lower riparian would have catastrophic consequences for Bangladesh
Upper riparians must respect international law
Muhammad Zamir
Serious concern has been expressed quite justifiably by hydrologists, environmentalists and the responsible authorities within the Bangladesh government over the last few weeks, with regard to reports published on 13 July, 2015 within the Indian media suggesting that the dynamics has started once again in that country for carrying out her much debated and controversial inter-river linking project.
It may be recalled that this concept of inter-linking of rivers was first proposed in undivided India by Engineer Arthur Cotton in the 19th century. Subsequently, in recent times, over the last four and half decades we have seen Indian planners focusing on this issue time and again. In the 1970s, the then Irrigation Minister K.L.Rao proposed a National Water Grid to facilitate provision of water for deficit areas from surplus parts of the country through the process of inter-basin transfer projects. The idea was examined but remained in limbo. Later, in 1980, the Indian Ministry of Water Resources prepared a report entitled National Perspectives for Water Resources Development. As pointed out by economist Jafar Ahmed Chowdhury, this report suggested three components for the water development project- the Himalayan component, the peninsular component and an intra-State river linking component. This idea was however binned by the Congress
government.
Nevertheless, the Indian planners continued their efforts in this direction through reports subsequently published in 1982 (by the National Water Development Agency), the proposals drafted in 1999 by the Indian central government and then lastly in 2004 after the Congress came to power in New Delhi.
The enormous anticipated cost of such a project and some other considerations however led to some disagreement among the younger generation of the Congress Party, particularly Rahul Gandhi. He, in 2009, pointed out quite correctly that inter-linking of rivers was dangerous and had severe environmental implications. The Indian plan to inter-link the Teesta-Ganges-Manas and Sankosh will require cooperation and agreement in principle to share their waters from the Indian States of West Bengal, Assam and Bihar. This Plan will also most certainly affect the flow of water within the 54rivers jointly shared by Bangladesh and India.
These rivers will include in particular the Ganges (Padma) which originates from China, flows through Nepal and India into Bangladesh; the Brahmaputra, which also originates in China, then enters India and subsequently flows into Bangladesh (with part of its catchment lying in Bhutan); the Dhorola and the Dudkumar which originates in Bhutan and then flows through India into Bangladesh; the Meghna which originates in Assam, India before flowing into Bangladesh. It would also be pertinent to point out that the Manas and the Sankosh Rivers are tributaries of the Brahmaputra that add to the water flow of this mighty river.
Media reports suggest that India intends to implement eventually 14 inter-link projects under the Himalayan component, 16 projects under the peninsular component and 36 projects under the intra-State component. The Ganges- Teesta- Sankosh- Manas link will come under the Himalayan rivers inter-link component. Indian planners aim to construct a number of dams which will act as storage reservoirs so that additional water availability can be used as surplus water from the eastern Indian States by the southern and western Indian States.
It is being explained that these measures would help to control flood in the adjoining territories of the Ganges and the Brahmaputra, facilitate irrigation over 22 million hectares and also help to generate considerable amount of hydro-power. It is also being anticipated that Indian efforts undertaken through the peninsular river inter-link paradigm would help to irrigate 35 million hectares and also similarly generate substantial amount of hydropower. This, it is being hoped will help in improving food security in India.
M. Inamul Haque, Chairman, Institute of Water and Environment, has however made some interesting points. According to him from an engineering point of view, the interlinking project can be executed and delivered on the ground but, there is the question of cost and also the principle of movement of the water as a hydraulic mass. He then mentions that the cost of the Project in 2005 was Rs. 560,000 crore. By now it has increased three-fold. He then goes on to add that the World Bank or the Asian Development Bank or both might still be interested in helping the Indian government to complete the project despite lingering opposition in this regard among certain quarters of the State governments of Assam, West Bengal and Bihar.
The question that it raises however is the cost such an environmentally destructive project will have for the sub-region in general and to Bangladesh in particular. This assumes serious dimensions, according to Professor Shafiqul Islam (Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, USA) given the fact that there is lack of technical information about the viability of the project. He then reiterates that beyond a few lines drawn on the map to indicate the rough location of the dams and canals, nothing is available in the professional community to verify the justifiability and efficacy of claimed benefits from the project.
Bangladeshi experts have correctly pointed out that contrary to international legal principles, such Indian inter-linking of rivers and diversion of water flow in the upper riparian areas at the cost of the lower riparian would have catastrophic consequences for Bangladesh- on its ecology and also promote water logging, salination in the coastal areas and also desertification, particularly in the north-western regions of Bangladesh. All these hydrological and geological factors will also have serious impact not only on our economy but will also lead to displacement of people and affect the re-charge of ground water aquifers within the fresh water aquatic system. It may also be mentioned that directly or indirectly more than 20 million Bangladeshis will suffer, especially those who are highly dependent on use of water for domestic and agricultural consumption.
India over the years has always assured that they will refrain from taking any unilateral decision that might prove to be harmful for Bangladesh. In this context some Indian water-experts have pointed out that upper riparians have a responsibility towards the lower riparian States and they would equally be upset if China were to take unilateral action to reduce water flow in the Brahmaputra. This has led these water experts to reiterate more than once that there will have to be discussion between India and Bangladesh ahead of the adoption of any inter-linking measures.
Analysts associated with water have drawn the attention of the relevant Indian authorities that as of now there are more than 400 treaties that have been signed and apply to various aspects or forms of trans-boundary water sources. In all these agreements the common factor has been the stress on
the obligation of the legal principle of equitable and reasonable use by the concerned parties of international water
course flow.
In this context one needs to also refer to certain provisions in the Convention on the Non-navigational uses of International Watercourses which was adopted in 1997 and came into effect in the second part of 2014 after it had been ratified by 41 States. Bangladesh is a signatory of this Convention. Articles 5 and 7 of this Convention draws attention to the fact that Watercourse States, shall in utilizing an international water course in their territories, take all appropriate measures to prevent the causing of significant harm to other Watercourse States. The Convention, consistent with other international instruments and customary international law also underlines that Watercourse States shall individually and where appropriate, jointly, protect and preserve the ecosystems of international water courses and refrain from causing significant harm to other watercourse States (their citizens or their other living resources) or to their environment.
It is understood that the Bangladesh government has reacted to the recent developments with seriousness. It is also reassuring to note that the BNP has come out with a constructive statement that their Party will extend all-out cooperation to the government in resolving all national issues, including the one related to water.
Our Water Resources Minister Anisul Islam Mahmud has mentioned in the media our government has taken steps in the fourth week of July to secure an explanation in this regard from the Indian Water Resources Ministry. A communication has already been sent to our Ministry of Foreign Affairs and they have been asked to take action and ascertain the facts from New Delhi.
This has been an important step. One hopes that the Indian government understands, that on such an issue that is unacceptable according to prevailing international law and that might adversely affect our national interests, the people and all political parties across the divide in Bangladesh are bound in bonds of unity. We have resolved our bilateral problems with regard to our maritime boundaries with India and Myanmar through international arbitration. There is no reason why we should not be able to seek such international intervention again. In the meantime our common development partners and international financial institutions need to refrain from getting involved in a project that is controversial to say the least.
The writer is a former ambassador, an analyst specialised in foreign affairs, right to information and good governance.
He can be reached at
