DHAKA TRIBUNE

Long Form

Monday, March 9, 2014

Divided by borders, united by rivers

Water sharing between Nepal, India, and Bangladesh, according to young scholars and professionals
Promiti Prova Chowdhury n
uwahati, Assam a milieu of tea, rhino and Bhupen Hazarika. Late Hazarika, theBard of Brahmaputra, rendered the voice of rivers in South Asia. Therefore, no other place on this earth would have been better to hold a dialogue on river. On November 14 last year, 20 young scholars and professionals from India and Bangladesh met at Guwahati to discuss on trans-boundary water resources management during an Indo-Bangladesh Dialogue titled Water Futures: A Dialogue for Young Scholars and Professionals. Water: is it just a scientific compound? An essential element for the survival of the living entities? The river streams that had given birth to the greatest civilisations over the ages? It seems the so-called H2O is more than that, it is H2OP4 power, politics, pollution, and profit. This is how Professor Imtiaz Ahmed of the International Relations department of Dhaka University, also the coordinator of the dialogue from Bangladesh, shed light on the seemingly ecological subject, making it much more comprehensive to participants like me. With films, lectures, discussions and field visits to the banks of river Brahmaputra in India and Jamuna in Bangladesh, the dialogue disclosed a window of insight to enhance the India-Bangladesh relationship, which, instead of being smooth and free of conflicts, appears strained today. Jointly organised by Jamia Millia Islamia, India and University of Dhaka, Bangladesh, the venture incorporated young professionals, environmentalists, journalists, creative artists, researchers, and government officials from both countries.

than their professional identity. So these people reiterate the words of the government.

Joint River Commission: Lacking mandate, independence

Asif Nazrul criticised the limited mandate of JRC. JRC members are government officials. They cannot protest decisions of the government. There is a provision for appointing a technocrat honorary member in JRC. Dr Ainun Nishat had been one. But, in the last regime of government, they did not appoint any such member. Some JRC members told me that India was not agreeable whenever Bangladesh wanted to appoint any local expert, although there were some proposals from Bangladeshs side during the last tenure of BNP to appoint a neutral independent expert, he said. On the other hand, Ritwick Dutta, an environmental activist and Advocate of the Supreme Court of India, said: No country in the world would ever give the decision making power to water resource specialists. They may be a part of the team but ultimately the ministry of water resources, the Prime Ministers Office or the ministry of foreign affairs would decide, because they are the real parties to guide it. The ministry of water resources will be at the prime to negotiate or appear to negotiate. These are the issue which affects security of the whole region. Therefore, ultimately the policy decisions will be taken by bureaucrats and diplomats. Engineers come second in the policy making structure.

A satellite image of the regions waters  that though the statute indicates to hold at least two joint meetings a year, the meetings do not take place even in years. The regular meetings are always postponed by the Indian counterpart. In June this year, India cancelled the regular meeting at the last minute showing unavoidable circumstance. He noted that in last 41 years, only 37 meetings were held. The number of meetings depends on timing and willingness. Two countries might be at different political stages at a time. It may not be a national election in India, but it can be a panchayet election in Calcutta, a state election in West Bengal or in Delhi. In such circumstances India will not be willing to hold a meeting, Dutta said. The day before leaving India, in a friendly chat with the participants, Mahbub Hassan Saleh, deputy high commissioner of Bangladesh High Commission to India denounced the terms common and trans-boundary and suggested that rivers were and should be called international natural resources crossing through international boundaries. Lamenting over the present condition of JRC, he said: JRC is not supposed to be the way it is today. It is supposed to be a joint platform, but in reality, the chairmanship is held by water resource ministries, as in, the politicians who do not have the time to focus on human-centric subjects. It is more like two separate national river commissions headed by respective ministries. They should do research and present those technical studies in every meeting. The present JRC could not produce the desired results in accordance to the spirit it was born with, he said. Now is a time to revive the statute and meet as frequently as possible, he suggested. Around 21bn people living on the basin of Teesta were unheard while negotiating over the river. Human issues are always ignored while designing any treaty which is a dangerous practice. We just focus on augmenting the flow but we have to keep in mind that we are the lowest riparian country and Bangladesh gets extremely less amount of water in the lean period. For example, Teesta flows 60bcm (billion cubic meter) year round whereas, during the lean period which is September to May, the flow reduces to only 5bcm, Saleh said. He stressed on the term equitable utilisation of water which ensures rightful share of the stakeholders of the river keeping the minimum flow of the river intact the minimum flow that is needed for the survival of the river. Moreover, it is a concern of biodiversity. Water has to be utilised judiciously as it is a depleting resource. He said the users were the ultimate beneficiaries. Farmers are the ones who actually know where and what quantum of water flows at different points of the year. So they should be heard through representatives. The think tanks and technical experts have to consider the local interest, he said. to force river water diversion through structural intervention.

wikimedia

Role of civil society

Dr Partha J Das, Programme Head, Water, Climate and Hazard, Aranyak, a Guwahati-based NGO for preservation and restoration of environment, said: Today, civil societies in India feel that the central government has not done enough. Therefore, they have taken the form of protests. In such a

society vigilance and greater transparency for disseminating public domain regarding the decisions and agreements in case of trans-boundary river system. He suggested that civil society ought to make use of the Right to Information (RTI) Act and collect information from the Ministry of Water Resources. Contents and reports of JRC meetings ought to be made public which otherwise mostly appear diplomatic and arbitrary at large.

Treaties: Bi-lateral or multi-lateral?

A source in JRC Bangladesh alleged that they wanted to build a sub-regional framework. For instance, the Brahmaputra basin is shared by Nepal, Bhutan, China, India and Bangladesh. Therefore, they wanted to engage Nepal and Bhutan in the negotiation. But India was highly against it. They said they would negotiate with us and Nepal or other countries separately, claimed the source. Advocate Dutta said: If you look at the river system, you will find that interest of Bangladesh and Nepal are completely different. For example, Nepal will be interested in building more storage dams, which will restrict the flow into India, whereas India would want to make more diversion channels that will affect the movement to the lower riparian country. Nepal is upstream of India and Bangla-

Bilateral negotiations: Who is the third party?

A concern that came from a number of resource persons was a river must be allowed to flow in its natural course for sustainability. If the flow is reduced by constructing dams and barrages, the river loses the natural force damaging the ecosystem. Prof Asif Nazrul, department of law, DU, said the river itself should be the third party in the negotiation. The river water should be utilised, developed and managed in a way that every community feels benefited through whatever the project is, a dam, a barrage or any hydropower project.

Instead of India-Bangladesh or India-Nepal river commission, there should be commissions like Brahmaputra Water Commission where all the basin countries can become a part

Loopholes in existing practices, faulty models

Prof Nazrul pointed out several loopholes in the previous agreements shared by the two countries. For example, in the Ganges Water treaty, there was no mention of the word pollution which is a sign of ignoring the issue of environmental impact, an issue which is comprehensively talked about in all European and American water sharing treaties. Highly criticising the Ganges River Treaty, Asif said: Bangladesh cannot even ask what amount of water is being shared. After flowing through West Bengal and Bihar, whatever amount is left, (the residual flow) enters Bangladesh. Then India says that it is distributed honestly, Asif said with discontent. Drawing examples from different global law, like UN Watercourses Convention 1997 and Helsinki Rules, he mentioned a number of factors to define equitable utilisation including population, impact of the project in the area, available alternatives, etc. Instead of building on Ganges, the Farakka barrage could be shifted to the Hugli port, he said. He convened JRC India to come and negotiate with all these information. Come with the information like what amount of water that had been withdrawn in Assam, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh and how much is available. Then you decide on the sharing, taking other factors of equity into consideration. Professor Jayanta Bandhopadhyay, retired Professor of Indian Institute of Management, Calcutta, asserted in his presentation that shifting of river course was an integral part of geo-morphology of Ganges, Brahmaputra and Meghna (GBM) system. He elaborated on the construction of Farakka Barrage as an outcome of faulty design of engineers who sought

If we focus on the future, wiping off the blame game and putting a fresh perspective towards the art of negotiation, then we can produce the desired results

Approach: ecological or commercial?

Saleh stressed on adopting a pickfree approach. We should not take cluster of rivers but, take one, try and resolve. It took 25 years to conclude one and there are five major river systems in Bangladesh. Individual river centric bi-lateral approach is something that should be abandoned, he opined. Prof Asif Nazrul proposed for basin-wise organisations instead of country-wise organisations. He said instead of India-Bangladesh or India-Nepal river commission, there should be commissions like Brahmaputra Water Commission where all the basin countries can become a part. An organisation possessing independence, decision-making authority, technical efficiency, knowledge base efficiency, and logistical efficiency. Prof Nazrul convened for a blend of commercial and ecological approach in water sharing agreements to which Professor Imtiaz added that a mechanism should be developed that would be eco-friendly as well as financially productive.

Roles of politicians, policy makers, environmentalists

There has to be two platforms for negotiation: political platform and technical platform. Technical platform cannot overrule the political platform. Political platform takes the final decision. Unfortunately in terms of India and Bangladesh, the political people talk on technical issues and the technical people go by the political people because those are the ones who ultimately make the decision, said Dr Ainun Nishat, Vice Chancellor of BRAC University and a member of the government negotiating team on the Teesta issue in 1989. During a question answer session with Prof Asif Nazrul, the participants raised concern over the roles of government officials and environmentalists in Bangladesh. Asif said: They [government] would invite some engineers, environmentalists and journalists who are more political

desh is the lowest. So how do we merge the interest of all three? I personally do not understand what can be the issues of common interest between Nepal and Bangladesh. I can see commonalities between India, Bhutan and Nepal, because they are the upstream Himalayan states. I do not think a multi-lateral treaty is possible in near future. In our current geo-political situation, there is no way that Bangladesh would be able to convince India to involve Nepal. The answer will be no for a simple reason that it would complicate the discussion which no one wants. Throughout the world, most of the rivers are shared by more than two countries but the treaties tend to be bi-lateral. It is easier to negotiate between two countries, opined Dutta.

situation, movements and campaigns by civil societies and student organisations have played an important role to mobilise the public in India. He mentioned about All Assam Students Union (AASU) that created a mass protest in Assam against the Indian government. Their demands were recognising flood and erosion as a national problem, allocating more funds in the field, and most importantly, checking the detrimental impacts of dams in the region. Dr Arupjyoti Saikia, associate professor, department of humanities and social science at Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Guwahati, shed light on a civil society group KMSS (Krishak Mukti Sangram Samiti). This organisation had been able to wage democratic movements like the anti-dam movement in last few years in Assam. The KMSS has done substantial work in mobilising people at the grass root level. It explained them the impacts of dam, like, disappearance of char, loss of grazing grounds for animals, disappearance of driftwood etc. AASU also play a key role to persuade the government to form a committee to look into the downstream effect. It has initiated interaction between the experts and the communities by training them on river development programmes. This constant negotiation has led to the re-thinking of river science and engineering. It has also helped to bring different civil society organisations and the public to major political debates, described Saikia. KMSS, considered as a classic example of how a civil society learns and unlearns argues on the points: Whose river is the Brahmaputra? Government or people? What kind of engineering will be used? Will science and technology take care of the environmental hazards? These are burning questions at our side as well.

Water Future: Breaking the prejudice

After returning from the dialogue, a report published on the Dhaka Tribune on last November 30 caught my eyes. Parts of the article titled Mighty Teesta turning into a narrow channel, read: Teesta, the second biggest river in Gaibandha, is drying up quickly and the drastic fall in its water level is impacting on agriculture, communication systems, employment and ecology in the region. Officials of Bangladesh Water Development Board said the water level started falling sharply in September and now most of the river has dried up at an alarming rate, leading to a number of chars forming on the riverbed. People living by the riverbanks attribute the present situation to the unilateral construction by India of a barrage at Gazoldoba over the Teesta, around 100km upstream of the Teesta Barrage Irrigation project (TBIP) at Dalia of Lalmonirhat district. The char dwellers have urged the government to take up necessary measures to resume the navigability and water flow in the river and continue it all the year round by rolling on the water sharing treaty with India as early as possible. To that, I want to narrow down. Among many things, we share mighty rivers that have not only created our landmarks, but also moulded our livelihood. We both have our share of conflict and concerns, and negotiations regarding water sharing that have failed to produce any tangible result. If we focus on the future, wiping off the blame game and putting a fresh perspective towards the art of negotiation, then we can produce the desired results. An effective strategy with technical understanding that assures sustainability of the eco-system resulting in enhanced well-being of the people is what we look forward to. Promiti Prova Chowdhury is a journalist.

Joint River Commission: a misnomer?

A sub-divisional engineer of JRC Bangladesh, seeking anonymity, alleged

Democracy and water sharing management: Let the community be heard

Right to Information: What is happening in the JRC?

Dutta stressed on the need for civil