The Hindu Business Line : Interlinking of rivers: Ripples of concern

NEVER before has any proposal won the unstinted support of the apex court, the first citizen and the chief executive of the country all at the same time. With this unprecedented backing, the Government has pressed in all available resources to steamroll the controversial interlinking of rivers project, ignoring largely the anticipated socio-economic and ecological implications as well as the compelling concerns of conscientious citizens.

The proposed interlinking of all the major rivers of the country is but a supermarket approach to meeting all the basic needs — of drinking water, irrigation and power — at one go. It is also a perfect political tool to woo the electorate, the opposition to which has been hard to come by.

For a minority of the conscientious citizens though, this has been the greatest contemporary challenge the governing elite has posed.

Though several times the combined impact of all major development projects in the country, the river-linking initiative has been presented as the panacea for all the conceivable ills. Inconceivable benefits notwithstanding, it could initiate the kind of growth that offers cover for rampant corruption and lucrative kickbacks.

The recent cases of corruption in the Environment Ministry are clear indications that ecological and environmental concerns are taking a back seat.

The coalition of political opportunism brushes aside instances of corruption as mere exceptions, ignoring the fact that such `exceptions' are indeed threatening to become `rules'. The inevitable side effects of development have indeed been taken for granted.

Ecological ignorance

The interlinking of rivers is being projected as one giant move to complete nature's unfinished agenda. With surplus flow into the Brahmaputra and less-than-desired flow into the Cauvery being the overriding concerns, the governing elite intends to bring equality in water access across the diverse eco-regions of the country.

How can nature allow one river basin to be water-rich and not the others? By 2050, the per capita availability in the Brahmaputra basin would be 9,000 kilolitres against 400 for the peninsular basins of Cauvery and Pennar.

For the powers-that-be, this is not acceptable, as it would mean less than the minimum per capita requirement of 1,000 kilolitres. If the roads can be linked, so too can the rivers, they argue.

Short-circuiting nature through inter-basin transfer may seem technologically feasible and, in a sense, possible too. But if that were really so, the mighty Indus could have easily flowed through the desert of Rajasthan into the sea via the shortest route and the same would be applicable to the Brahmaputra as well.

Not only is ecology being undermined, geography too seems to be at the receiving end. Unprecedented in the country's independent history, both are being altered without getting the conventional nod from the protectors of the Constitution.

Surplus flow and its wasteful discharge into the oceans seem the prime movers for the project. What if the food (the elusive calcium molecule that travels from the mountain slopes) does not reach the corals in the sea?

The corals and fish seem to be the least of the concerns for the proponents of mass water transfer. And so are the resultant displacement, the anticipated water-logging and consequent transfer of pollutants. Such ecological damage could neither be averted nor satisfactorily addressed in either of the mega-projects thus far and, yet, the proposed interlinking of rivers is being touted as free from such threats.

Ecological ignorance is its peak, albeit knowingly. Currently, 1,869 billion cubic metre (bcm) of fresh water is all that is available out of the annual precipitation of 4,000 bcm.

Even considering the country's projected demand in 2050, the current supply is enough to meet the need for 1,447 bcm of water of an estimated 1.64 billion population. Much cheaper eco-friendly options are being bypassed in favour of this proposal that will cost the country well over $500 billion, factoring in cost escalations and anticipated delays.

Political arrogance

Ecological ignorance coupled with political arrogance is well reflected in the statement by the Chairman of the Task Force on Interlinking of Rivers, Mr Suresh Prabhu: "The Government doesn't have proprietary rights on `wisdom', but the Government has the right to `act' upon its decisions." But were not the decisions supposed to be people-centric? If so, why is peoples' wisdom being discounted?

Not many know that the country's first Prime Minister did not allow the `disease of gigantism' to trouble him for long. In Jawaharlal — A biography, Prof. S. Gopal records Nehru's subsequent views on the subject expressed at the Central Board of Irrigation meeting on November 17, 1958: "Nehru was now more aware than in the past when, surveying the Bhakra-Nangal dam in 1956, he had whispered to himself, `These are the new temples of India where I worship.'"

Addressing the meeting, Nehru had remarked, "... (he) doubted very much if the Government would have initiated such a project if it came before them at this time. Such a dam was exceedingly expensive, involved a considerable amount of foreign exchange and took a long time to be completed. All that India had gained from it was electric power and little irrigation."

Interestingly, K. L. Rao, whose Ganga-Cauvery link plan has been re-packaged into the interlinking of rivers proposal, was a minister in Nehru's Cabinet.

History repeated itself when Rajiv Gandhi, speaking to State Irrigation Ministers in August 1986, said: "The situation today is that since 1951, 246 big surface irrigation projects have been initiated. Only 66 of these have been completed, 181 are still under construction.

Perhaps, we can safely say that almost no benefit has come to the people from these projects. For 16 years, we have poured out money. The people have got nothing back, no irrigation, no water, no increase in production, no help in their daily life."

Any decision that could affect the lives of millions must go through the rigour of scrutiny of all the available documents on the subject.

Collective avarice

The interlinking of rivers proposal offers the politician electoral gains, as votes can still be bargained for false promises. For industry, the interlinking promises consumption of cement and steel for decades. For bureaucrats, it presents opportunity to barter contracts. And for engineering and other professionals, it will be a dream come true.

If equality in water access is the guiding principle that is being used to lure the unsuspecting masses, then questions about providing employment to eligible citizens, food security and equal opportunities to all crop up.

Thus, access to water alone does not ensure equality. It would be akin to producing foodgrains for all but without ensuring purchasing capacity for most. Further, access to copious water may encourage mass wastage, as has been the tendency in canal-irrigated areas across the country.

The promise that the proposal will generate 34,000 MW of power; extend irrigation to dry districts in the country and boost GDP by 4 per cent sounds good on paper. If the track record of past projects is any indication, it is an illusion that has been successfully sustained through the past five decades of our independent existence.

(The author is a water expert and a development analyst attached to the New Delhi-based Ecological Foundation. He can be reached at sudhirendar@vsnl.net)