Bogged Down

Indian officials concede the need for a solution that would satisfy both sides, but say it's the constant carping by Bangladesh which is turning the mood in the official circles to one of indifference. As Khaleda Zia sinks deeper into the political morass at home, her statements get more strident. She first raked up the water dispute in her speech at the UN General Assembly in 1993, commenting on the adverse effects of the Farakka barrage on the agriculture, economy and environment of her country. "We have not succeeded in effectively convincing India of our fair share of the water resources of the common rivers flowing through the two countries," she said, complaining that India was "unilaterally" withdrawing Ganga waters.

To impartial observers, her accusation of human rights violations might seem excessive. But the political situation in Bangladesh explains her aggressive stance. Although Bangladeshi officials say she was trying to draw the sympathy of the world community to the plight of nearly four million people affected by the water crunch, independent observers in Dhaka feel her outburst was meant more for domestic consumption. It had little to do with international politics. As a former diplomat at Bangladesh's UN mission, Mohiuddin Ahmed, puts it: "She has just mentioned the problem in the speech. Unless it is incorporated in the agenda for the UN General Assembly, nobody takes note of it. And to incorporate it in the agenda, you need substantial support from other member countries."

What is the problem? A little after Farakka in West Bengal, the Ganga splits into the Padma, which goes to Bangladesh, and the Bhagirathi, which flows towards Calcutta. Over the last two centuries, a greater volume of water was flowing into the Padma. Consequently, in 1960, India began constructing the Farakka barrage in West Bengal, which was commissioned in the mid-'70s. This raised the water level and diverted it into the Bhagirathi onward to Calcutta during the lean season. According to R. Rangachari, an Indian expert on water resources who has been involved in negotiations with Bangladesh (and before that with East Pakistan) since 1960, this was essential to ensure flushing of the Calcutta port. Another official, who did not want to be named, said if the Calcutta port dried up, it would have a severe economic impact on eastern India. Rangachari says the need for diversion had been felt even before the Partition. The British had been examining the declining flow of water into the Bhagirathi for about a century, and in 1945 a panel recommended that water should be diverted to the Bhagirathi. After further studies, it was decided to build Farakka.

In a polity as divided as Bangladesh, there is unanimity that the impact of Farakka is disastrous for the country, since it has reduced water flow into the Padma. Bangladeshi officials feel that almost the entire division of Rajshahi in the north and the southern Khulna district are hit badly by the withdrawal of water during the dry season (between April and May). They say it is because of the barrage that the Ganga-Kabadak irrigation network, the biggest in Bangladesh, cannot supply enough water to the land. Rangachari contests this. According to him, this particular project involves pumping water away from the Ganga. In the first meeting in 1960, the East Pakistani officials had maintained they needed about 3,500 cusecs of water for irrigation. In the second meeting the figure went up and finally Bangladesh asked for about 50,000 cusecs. Bangladesh will need 50,000 cusecs, if they build a larger project. But 35 years later, the project, which India was told would be built by 1975, remains a non-starter.

Bangladesh feels the decreasing flows from the Ganga to smaller rivers like the Garai and the Madhumati have caused salinity in the Khulna region. Bangladesh's sole newsprint mill and the Goalpara power station, both in Khulna, are often forced to bring fresh water from elsewhere, pushing up operating costs phenomenally. Bangladeshi officials complain that the country got only 9,000 to 12,000 cusecs of water in each of the past three years during the dry season. Quoting the agreement of 1977, which had ensured a greater quantum of water to Bangladesh, they describe India's behaviour now as 'irrational', and add that they do not expect an early solution to the problem.

Neither do the Indian officials. They say that though the Joint Rivers Commission was revived in May after a meeting between Narasimha Rao and Khaleda Zia during the SAARC summit, a solution cannot be expected until next year's polls in Bangladesh.

Indian officials feel Bangladesh shouldn't keep harking back to the 1977 accord. That year, the Janata Party government, in trying to sort things out, had signed a three-year agreement. Under this agreement, if there was a flow of 55,000 cusecs in the river in the lean season, 34,000 cusecs would be allowed to flow into the Padma and the rest would go into the Bhagirathi. And if the lean season flow were to go below 55,000 cusecs, Bangladesh would get 80 per cent of the water. The understanding in 1977 was that in the three years of the agreement, the two countries would try for a permanent solution. "Once Bangladesh got this agreement, it lost interest in finding an overall solution," says an Indian official. In 1980, the agreement was extended for two more years.

바카라 웹사이트In 1982, while the two countries signed an MoU, pledging to search for means to augment the water flow in three years, India refused to give a guarantee of 80 per cent flow in the dry season. In 1984, Rajiv Gandhi came to power and told his officials to take a sympathetic view of the situation, with the MoU being extended till 1988. However, nothing transpired and the MoU lapsed. Since then, India takes the water it needs for Calcutta and releases some for Bangladesh.

Bangladesh had suggested that water be brought down from Nepal into the Ganga. But as Rangachari points out: "This would be costly and politically difficult. Water would have to be brought through parched areas of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, and Nepal would ask for its pound of flesh. In the event, Nepal, while not saying no, asked what there was in it for them."

The same point is made by other Indian officials. Experts even doubt the technical data provided by Bangladesh. "Practical sharing of water can take place only if we take into account our definable requirements," says an official. "We have some idea of our needs. But Bangladesh has never seriously defined its requirements. They whipped up passions and raised the issue in the UN General Assembly in 1993," he adds.

The official says it is not possible to go back to the 1977 pact because Indian needs have increased tremendously in the Ganga basin. Rangachari agrees: "The density of population in the Ganga basin is very high. The per capita flow in the Ganga is much less than in the Brahmaputra. Besides, in the lean season, the flow carried by the Brahmaputra is four times than that in the Ganga."

바카라 웹사이트India had suggested a link canal for augmenting water flow in the dry season from the Brahmaputra to the Ganga, through Bangladeshi territory. The latter turned it down. "It will be suicidal for us," says Shamim Ahmed, director general in the Bangladesh foreign ministry, referring to the displacement of a huge population for building the canal.

"The solution lies in the Ganges basin," says Khalilur Rahman, director of the Joint Rivers Commission. And herein lies the rub. While India argues that the Brahmaputra and the Ganga, which form one basin, should be utilised to augment water supply, Bangladesh insists on looking at the Ganga in isolation.

The meeting between Rao and Khaleda Zia in May didn't improve matters much. Says an official in New Delhi: "We didn't seem to be talking the same figures. The foreign secretaries of the two countries have met twice subsequently and have only agreed to re-establish a system of joint monitoring of water flows."

There is now a greater rigidity on both sides. Though the Joint Rivers Commission is likely to meet in the next few months, unless both agree to bend, there can be no solution. As a retired Indian official put it, "India can afford to be a little generous." But he could not suggest ways to get around the technical problems.