Startling news for some and somewhat dreamy for others is the resurrected plan
of interlinking rivers of India. Cited by President Kalam and pushed by Chief
Justice Kirpal on the verge of retirement, the sheer grandeur of the idea is
meant to appeal to people facing drought and flood. Anyone who knows what
river systems are, what inter-basin transfers bring forth, and the politics
and economics of large river valley and inter-basin projects, will know that
whatever water this plan holds is but a mirage.

One wonders not at gleaming messages from the President on the eve of
Independence day. As a scientist, though, has he seen the plan, impacts
assessment, projected costs and benefits? Since it is APJ Kalam talking,
Arundhati Roy’s comparison of big dams to nuclear bombs comes to mind. Is this
a scientist talking politics or a politician talking science?

Whenever dams and water policy, Enron or some other project has come before
the judiciary, it has taken the position that it is for the executive to
decide on policy. Does the Supreme Court have a locus standi to order
interlinking of rivers? Without debate preconditional to a decision, with no
specifics available for concerned citizens, people’s organisations, and
independent experts to peruse, the gigantic idea appears bearing the seal of
the apex court. Common people have been taught from childhood to accept its
“verdict” as conscientious, constitutional, and “legal.” Once considered a
fait accompli, a democratic review or scientific assessment and decision
become almost redundant.

We have seen the politics that come with any human intervention in rivers
flowing since generations from one administrative unit to another. With all
the water that has flown or not flown into Cauvery, one cannot take seriously
a grandiose dream of linking all the rivers. But hearing it from the highest
echelons of the State and judiciary, one cannot wait for some agency of the
same state to bring out the plus and minus of it. A hasty beginning may not be
prevented unless civil society, experts, and common people respond.

River basin management in the context of gigantic water planning is discussed
in national and international laws. Inter river transfer has come under
criticism since the Irrigation Commission of British days, and plans such as
Captain Dastur’s “garland canal” rejected decades ago, even when big dams were
in full swing. Interlinking rivers was rejected in the nineties by the centre,
on advice of experts and bureaucrats such as Dr. M.S. Reddy, and the recent
Supreme Court Order termed an “error” by Dr. Ramaswamy Iyer (both
ex-Secretaries, Water Resources Ministry).

Prior experience teaches that we must study basic aspects of each river basin,
including catchment area treatment, command area development, benchmark survey
of the affected population, impacts of the reservoir and canal system on
farmers, and fisheries, and public health. Environmental Impact Assessment
will be inevitable. Compensatory and mitigatory plans must be rationally
conceived. Where the canal network extends, will surveyors assess whether soil
is irrigable through surface water flows without waterlogging and salinisation
that has taken a million hectares of Indian Land? What would be the impacts on
food security already in crisis, of a sudden change in cropping pattern?
Enough warnings have been given. The River Valley Guidelines (1983) discuss
environmental and social impacts due to transfer of water and people beyond
suitability. Unless these become part of the project planning, they are
neither considered nor dealt with.

Struggles in the Narmada Valley and on other projects pushed due to political
expediency without complete appraisal, have brought out the seriousness of
large scale displacement as well as impacts on and injustice to the proposed
beneficiaries. Basic questions demand investigation. Will such a linking of
rivers actually prevent drought? Or merely transfer drought? What will be the
extent of displacement, and provisions for rehabilitation? Canals also
displace. In the Sardar Sarovar project, 1,50,000 landholders stand to lose
land due to the canal network, of whom 23,500 will lose more than 25% of their
land, and 2,000 will become landless. None is considered project-affected nor
eligible for rehabilitation.

For intra-river basin transfers, the principle of subsidiarity requires that
water be harnessed from where it first drops. The whole crisis of water
management today is due to total neglect of water harvesting, either because
it is considered peripheral or to be a non-replicable, non-profitable
micro-level experiment.

Therefore we see the destruction of cultures, communities, and ecosystems,
creating conflicts between states, as in Cauvery, and between state and
people, as in Narmada. Conflicts are dealt with more politically than
scientifically. If this happens in just one river basin, imagine the
consequences across several river basins. Interstate disputes could take
decades to resolve.

As our national highways have become conveyor belts for enormously polluting
noxious emissions, the huge interlink threatens to become an open sewage
garlanding India. The canals, designed for carrying irrigation waters rather
than large peak flows, will not be sufficient to control or divert floods in
the northern states but will transfer silt. Several large dams built to
provide the head and storage required to supply the canals will permanently
submerge fertile lands, forests, village communities and towns, leaving
millions of people displaced or dispossessed. Any attempt to obtain full
information, question impacts and demand just compensation requires sacrifice
by communities living on the natural resources.

Interlinking Himalayan and peninsular rivers is budgeted at Rs. 5.6 lakh
crores, even before the completion of feasibility studies, expected by 2008,
at a cost of 150 crores. Have alternatives been assessed? When pending water
projects require Rs. 80,000 crores to be completed and made usable as per
Parliamentary Committee report, is such a plan viable, scientific, or
democratic? There is no time, space, or process indicated for participation of
communities whose riparian rights must be considered, and who face upstream
impacts, which are now known, and lesser-known downstream impacts. Annual
Irrigation budgets of state governments are about 1000 crores each. From where
will the money for inter-linking rivers come even if states pool resources for
the next several decades? At the cost of local irrigation projects of the true
and tested kind that have kept India self-sufficient. In this esoteric
experiment of Inter-linking rivers, India itself is the guinea pig.

Water is not like cement or concrete - it is life. Just distribution and full
appreciation of its economic, financial, environmental and social dimensions
must be part of the planning process. The 73rd amendment and the Tribal
Self-rule Act direct that people’s consent and consultation cannot be
sidelined. Rivers support millions of people. A grandiose scheme such as
interlinking would be likely to involve international lending agencies.
Before anything starts, let people know what is in the mind of the president,
the ministers and sanctioned by the outgoing chief justice within a few days.

It will be nothing short of criminal if water is not treated properly and the
water crisis worsens. Already Shivnath river in Chattisgarh is privatised, and
the contractor has snatched away people’s right even to drinking water.
People of the country deserve to know if this centralised plan will
nationalise the water only to privatise, just as national public property is
doled - not sold - out at meagre prices, whether it is oil, gas, land or
mineral resources, to private companies, foreign and domestic Multinational /
Antinational Corporations.

In nature what is linked are not rivers but water itself, through the
hydrological cycle. A balanced water cycle demands a holistic policy that
promotes forest cover, prevents erosion, enhances ground water through
micro-watershed structures, and provides for desiltation and maintenance of
existing tanks, lakes and reservoirs. Agricultural practices and public
distribution system should be in tune with the diversity of diets based on
local conditions rather than on water intensive monocultures. A vigilant
judiciary should punish corrupt administrations for non-implementation of
environmental regulations, right to life, livelihood, and minimum wages in an
age where there is enough food to fill the godowns of India while poor
citizens, especially women and children, sleep hungry and malnourished.