Should we construct the Ganges barrage?

Hafizuddin Ahmed, Water Resources Minister, said in the Jatiya Sangsad on June 15 that due to unilateral withdrawal of water upstream through Farakka the dry season flows to Bangladesh had become very lean thereby seriously affecting the country's irrigation system. To overcome such a situation a survey was being conducted to build a barrage on the Padma, after bilateral discussion with India, the minister informed the House. But should we now really rush in for construction of the barrage which will entail huge expenditure? Let us give a second thought to it.

The construction of the Ganges Barrage will involve a huge expenditure, more than Taka. 25,000 crore, which will be a serious drain on the meagre resources of our poor country. Moreover, a large tract of our agricultural land will be inundated, and will remain so, causing colossal loss of agricultural crops. However, India may be overjoyed, for as soon as the barrage is constructed it would most probably stop supplying water to us and use the quantum of water for irrigation purposes in northern and western India, specially in the desert land of Rajasthan.

Veena Sikri, the Indian High Commissioner to Bangladesh, in an article had already favoured the construction of Ganges Barrage although she did not mention how much of the cost of the proposed barrage India was willing to bear. (It may be noted that under the Indus Basin Water Treaty of 1960, India did acquiesce to sharing a part of the costs of the replacement works which were done in Pakistan in order to irrigate the land hitherto irrigated by the eastern rivers of the Indus).

I think the construction of the expensive Ganges Barrage will be illogical and unnecessary. Instead we should lodge our legitimate claim over the waters of the Ganges as all the international laws and practices are in our favour. Some of these are discussed below:

Lake Lanoux water dispute: The water of the river Lanoux which flows from Lake Lanoux in France and passes into the territory of Spain was being used for irrigation purpose by the Spanish farmers for a long time. Suddenly, France decided to construct a dam on the river Lanoux that would undoubtedly affect the interests of Spanish farmers. Thus arose the Lake Lanoux water dispute, which was eventually settled by the Lake Lanoux Arbitral Tribunal.

While rejecting France's claim for absolute territorial sovereignty over its river, it held, "Territorial sovereignty plays is a presumption. It must bend before all international obligations whatever their origin. It further added "the upstream state has, according to the rules of good faith, the obligation to take into consideration the different interests at stake to strive to give them all satisfaction compatible with the pursuit of its own interests and to demonstrate that on this subject it has a real solicitude to reconcile the interest of other common riparian countries with its own."

The Hannon Doctrine of absolute territorial sovereignty over international rivers: This doctrine, which originated in the USA in 1895, has in fact never been followed and practiced by any state, not even by the US. Thus, while resolving the Rio Gronde dispute, the US did agree to provide Mexico with water equivalent to that which Mexico had used before the diversion of waters from the Rio Gronde, for irrigation purposes in the US, took place.

The 1933 Montevideo declaration adopted by the Seventh International Conference of American States limits the right of utilisation of common waters by the obligation not to infringe upon the legal right of utilisation by other states. Similar views are also expressed by the inter-American Bar Association and the institute of International Law Association. The 1977 UN Water Conference at Mar del Plata has also accepted this view of the basin states' responsibility in dealing with common waters.

Besides, in a number of court cases, the US Supreme Court [e.g. Kansas vs Colorado (1902), North Dakota vs Minnesota (1925) etc.] and the German court [Wathemburg and Prussia vs Badem (1927)] asserted that they invoked the principles of equitable apportionment and limited territorial sovereignty as established principles of International Law. Similarly, the Italian court of cessation asserts that international law recognises right of every riparian state to enjoy, as a participant, the partnership created by the river.

In view of the above decisions of court cases, and international laws and practices in this regard, we should ask India to stop unilateral withdrawal of water from the Ganges. As India is increasingly withdrawing waters from the Ganges the availability of water at Farakka, for allocation between Bangladesh and India as per 1996 water agreement, will be less and less in future. To solve the problem, the total quantum of waters of the Ganges and its tributaries should be calculated from 1992 to 2005 and should be distributed between Bangladesh and India in such a manner that Bangladesh is assured of a minimum 35,000 cusecs of water in the leanest period every year.

Bangladesh has recently proposed to India to increase dry season flows of the Ganges through the Farakka Barrage by constructing reservoirs in Nepal. The government is also continuing its efforts to convince Nepal for a tripartite cooperation (among Bangladesh, India and Nepal) to construct reservoirs in the Himalayan kingdom to augment the Ganges flow during the dry season said Water Resources Minister Hafizuddin Ahmed in the Jatiya Sangsad on June 15. The proposal of Bangladesh is undoubtedly a good one and there is no reason why India, which always professes to be our great friend, should not accept it. And if India does, the water problem of the Ganges will disappear like the morning mist and there will be no need for the construction of the Ganges Barrage. However, if India does not accept it, we should file a case in the International Court of Justice.

Mohammad Mujibor Rahman is a retired Collector of Customs.