Trans-boundary rivers: Some thoughts and more

These have become mantras for the Track II group of familiar names. We are not even an inch nearer the solution we seek for common good.

It is, however, somewhat intriguing to study the range of initial reactions at the opening day of the conference starting with the Bangladesh Water Resources Minister's statements' the project might trigger a mass-migration destroying the social fabrics of both the countries' and 'I have talked with the Nepalese government and they are willing to multilateral talks. It now depends on India. But they are not willing to discuss the issue'. We go on to his proposal that all riparian countries including Nepal, India, China and Bhutan sit together to find out a proper solution to the issue.

These remarks, if I may point out, suffer from acute contradictions and misplaced hopes not to speak of the almost-impossible-to-orgnaise scenario to find a 'proper solution'. And if we add the time element such pious conference warming hyperbole leads one to believe that we all are living in an ivory tower. That Indian has always avoided any multilateral discussions with Nepal and Bangladesh is well known. And to stretch that discussions to include China will be well nigh impossible. India's self interest however prompts her to agree to trilateral discussion on gas pipeline arrangements with Myanmar and Bangladesh. If we could leverage gas supply and transit route discussions to get India to agree to hold trilateral talks on sharing of the common rivers and on the Indian plan on diversion of waters for her own internal use, that would indeed be a significant achievement. India ought also to realise that would honour the spirit of the 1996 Treaty on Ganges as the quote from its preambular part refers to so eloquently.

Then comes the point made by AMA Muhith on getting this issue on the upcoming SAARC summit agenda. While out of agenda topics have indeed been discussed by the Heads of Government/State on the sidelines, inclusion of such a contentious matter in the formal discussion will not be acceptable. It is also somewhat embarrassing to suggest that since Bangladesh herself is the host of the summit. But this and other major irritants in Indo-Bangladesh relations could, and indeed should be vigorously taken up by the prime minister of Bangladesh in her one to one meeting with her Indian counterpart during the forthcoming summit in Dhaka.

The most baffling comment is from the Bangladesh Unnayan Parishad head who said 'Bangladesh does not officially know the purposes and status of the river linking project and hence, what implications it may have on Bangladesh'. In the Independence Day address in August 2003 the President of India had announced this project in some details (Please refer to 'Protesting Delhi's water diversion plan', The Daily Star, 26 August 2003 article, by this writer). I also wonder whether the setting up of Farakka Barrage was officially made known to Bangladesh by India. As for this project's implications a number of participating experts including the Bangladesh Water Minister, have given a fairly graphic and indeed alarming picture of the outcome of the massive transfer of waters into India's domestic network, to give India, as its President had said, 'water and power security'. Do we need to wait for official confirmation greater than that to design our strategy to face this new threat to Bangladesh? And that on top of the failure of the secretary level meeting last September in Dhaka to find solution to the sharing of waters of Teesta and six other common rivers.

An editorial then on the subject in The Daily Star contained a very sharp observation 'when the structure of negotiation is many layered ... there is a scope for procrastination. JCE (Joint Committee of Experts) has been trying to grapple with the technical problems for the last seven years, evidently without hitting a common ground' adding succinctly that 'This is despite the fact that the Ganges water sharing accord (1996) contained a commitment to resolve the water sharing problems pertaining to other common rivers on the same principle as that of the historic agreement.'

India's strategy of delaying the JRC meeting has been the grossest attempt to get her way despite the fourth letter from Bangladesh requesting for a meeting in Dhaka, India is not responding to the proposed continuation of discussion of the water sharing of seven rivers including Teesta. Perhaps Bangladesh should have noted Indian Water Resources Secretary VK Duggal's comment in Dhaka meet that only when Teesta sharing agreement is completed, India would be willing to look at the question of sharing of waters of the six other rivers one by one on individual merit, as a lot of data, analysis and scrutiny are involved in these exercises.

Evidently, Bangladesh always gets entrapped in the quicksand of such grand quests. And meanwhile projects like the inter-linking of rivers are developed by India for her own self interest, certainly not an enlightened ones as far as we are concerned. But we are overtaken by events. We also tend to forget that so called Track II practitioners from India, the likes of Ram Swami Iyer and BG Verghese, could hardly get away from serving the Indian interests alone. Let me quote from a resume of the findings in a Track II publication edited among others by QK Ahmed and BG Verghese "Since the GBM river systems cut across several countries, for optimum benefit to accrue to all the concerned countries, these rivers need to be properly managed and developed within an integrated GBM regional framework. Indeed waters, flowing down these rivers, establish the natural inter-country linkages and may be identified as a crucial resource of hope that can be regionally tapped for the region's future development ... and proceeding towards integrated development of all sectors of the region's economy and society'. (Cooperation: the Eastern Himalayan Rivers, 2000, p.191)

Mr. Verghese has apparently moved away from 'waters flowing down these (international/common) rivers, establish the natural inter-country linkages' and from the heavy accent on regional cooperation to advocating Indians pursuit of a unilateral solution to 'the water security problems suffered in the south-west and north of India during the dry season'. And this is precisely the season when total flow in major common rivers go low and further, systematic and apparently huge withdrawals through the proposed project along the upstream can only have one logical outcome -- a sharp fall in the availability of waters in all major common rivers, including the flow at Farakka for the Ganges. We can also refer to the India's advanced plan of the barrage at Tipaimukh that would almost dry up the Surma and Kushiara flows most adversely affecting Sylhet and northern part of Bangladesh.

Revered Medha Patekar's comments, in particular that 'the people of India have become more aware of the devastating impacts of the project' and Mr. Verghese's admission that there had been some discussions with the UNDP and the World Bank ... to seek funding (The Daily Star, 20 Dec. and 19 Dec, 04) should be enough to cancel out Indian High Commissioner to Bangladesh's claim of the project being only at 'conception' stage. The Conference Chairman's observation that the intervention of the Indian Supreme Court asking the authorities to carry ahead the project made Bangladesh and many in India really concerned' is worth pondering over. Such a pronouncement from the highest court in India is hardly likely to be based on a matter of 'conception' and their decision must have been based on the proposed project and definitive collateral evidence, rather than a concept.

Those experts and other participants in the Conference who professed the lack of information on what India is considering hopefully have become much more informed after this Conference. The problem does not so much lie in the ignorance that some conveniently pretend to have, but in the inability and unwillingness to act on what is known and design alternative strategies. Secondly, those who have brought in the element of 1971 spirit of understanding and assistance ('hoping that will prevail in dealing with usable water resources that is increasingly becoming scarce in this region' -- Mr. AMA Muhith and 'GMB carried the mingled bloods along with their river flows' -- Dr. QK Ahmed, as quoted in the press reports) tend to easily pass over the fact that setting up of Farakka Barrage was done against all canons of justice and fair play so much due to a new born nation and the spirit being invoked now was at that time so much the fresher and nearer the event. Self interest, we tend to forget, is the natural driving force and the scarcer the resource, fiercer would be the divide.

We have absolutely no dearth of actionable information and plentiful supply of experts. We need now to design our responses to a range of scenarios. In my 26 August, 2003 article (The Daily Star), I had suggested the following: a) A quick inquiry into the reasons why we do not have after all these years our strategy options worked out in respect of (i) the Ganges Treaty, (ii) the JRC matters/issues relating to our common rivers and (iii) the withdrawal threats scenario now looming large, from the upper riparian countries and

b) We should also seriously examine the details of the possibilities of regional cooperation that could formally become a topic for discussion in SAARC in the coming years.

The discussions and recommendations of the just concluded conference in Dhaka should provide a reasonable wealth of information, data and views to enable us to determine the basics of our position on the entire range of water-related issues in general and on the mega project of diversion of international/common rivers' waters into India's own river network, with all the anticipated, facts-based apprehensions of the lower riparian in regard to its pernicious and destructive impact. It is also expected that our Missions in New Delhi, Kathmandu and Thimpu (and also in Islamabad) have been providing necessary information, views and analysis from their respective locations on a regular basis in these vital matters.

A preliminary briefing paper on these issues from our perspectives should be prepared and distributed to the media, concerned activists and organisations, along with launching of a special website on the problems we face presented in a professional and competent manner -- facts, figures, relevant references and documents, incontrovertible arguments, without hyperboles or naive comments. It should be a serious exercise of a nation under a virtual threat for the purpose of global information. Let us raise our voice as a small nation for a just and fair hearing across the frontiers in the first instance without any further delay.

Simultaneously, a select Expert Group with impeccable credentials, ability, knowledge and experience could be set up to act as a dynamic Think Tank, who should also roll out detailed position papers with executive summaries on essential measures and on desirable actions to help sensitise the nation, to represent our case to all our friendly countries and organisations and above all to enable our authorities to effectively, competently present our viewpoints while responding sensibly to the positions taken by the Indian authorities.

It is just possible that water sharing issues could be given some urgency and positive response by India, if we could be wise enough to keep the trilateral discussions on gas pipe line and the bilateral agreement on river transit (West Bengal to Assam Seven sister states) on hold. Some patience and a lot of diplomatic skill and political will are the ingredients for a successful preservation of our own enlightened interest.

Syed Muhammad Hussain is a former Ambassador and Secretary (all comments etc -- syedmhussain@yahoo.com.)