River Linking: A Technology Fantasy

Professor Pushpesh Pant (PP) is currently Professor in Diplomatic Studies at the Jawaharlal Nehru University and he is a media personality. He spoke to River Link Moderator, Gopal Krishna (GK) expressing his vehement opposition to the River Linking proposal.

GK: What are your views on the proposed interlinking of rivers?

PP: I am against it. The project is grand and its grandiose nature borders on megalomania. It is an imposition of dream under the misconception that it’s a vision. A dream becomes vision only when it’s a shared dream. The citizens of the country do not share this dream.

What happened to Indira Gandhi Canal? Who does not know about its environmental consequences? The project seeks to introduce further inequity in the society. Is the project answering equity question? Is it solving inter state disputes?

Who has done the impact assessment before embarking on the proposal of tinkering with the river system? It is the hubris of modern day man. It is a mirage. It is an attempt to become a modern day Bhagirath. It’s a ploy to invite multinational companies and the civil engineers. The local contractors await subcontracting from them. Civil Engineering is in any case not an upcoming engineering branch.

Has there been any discussion before the proposal? What will happen to the people who are dislocated? It is a rhetorical stance. It is akin to shock and awe policy of US. How can such massive interference be tolerated with nature? The project entails enormous digging, excavation and blasting.

There is an attempt to strike a balance of convenience. In the year of International Water, there seems to be a sinister design to declare our rivers as world’s common heritage to be exploited by the multinational corporations.

GK: What is your view about the Task Force under the Chairmanship of Suresh Prabhu? What is the reason for the promptness of our Prime Minister in the setting up of a Task Force at a mere suggestion of the Supreme Court?

PP: Who is Suresh Prabhu? One day, he is an industry minister, second day he environment minister, on the third day he is power minister, forth day, he is nowhere and on the fifth day he is the Chairman of Task Force.

The real culprit is Atal Behari Vajpayee. The project is an example our Prime Minister’s dishonesty. He is not being straight with his own citizens.

His only desire is to be recorded in the history books for having launched this project. All these technological fixes to a human problem is a dishonest solution. He wishes to be a Kalyugi Bhagirath.

Will not be better for him to take care of stinking and dying Gomti first in his Lucknow constituency?

He is invoking images to delude citizens from reality. The tragic consequences are being lost sight of like Muhammad Tughlaq. He had tape water throughout his life and his Task Force members also have the same urban tape water approach in dealing with alive water system.

All our villagers know that whenever and wherever water is bound it stinks. The proposal is against the common wisdom of our villages. It is unsuitable aesthetically, philosophically, ecologically and morally. The project is a subterfuge to hide incompetence.

What is the fate of Sutluj Canal. I have seen how first five year plan was executed and also the defeat of 62. I have also witnessed Harit kranti and Harit kranti ki bhranti (green revolution and the illusion of green revolution). All this talk of using cutting edge technology to solve human problems is misplaced.

It is like the story of the elephant and the blind men. It is like the myth of Sisyphus.

Vajpayee is strengthening his bonds with the revivalist forces in raking up mindless and inexplicable symbols, when there are more pressing needs such as health of big and small rivers. Divinity attributed to our land and water is due to ecological reasons but Hindutava proponents like him do not understand Hinduism.

GK: How do you react to the statements of B G Vergehse and M S Swaminathan who are in support of this project? The former says, it is a gigantic fraud as far as the time frame and rehabilitation policy is concerned but the project is grand and visionary. The latter says, it’s a win-win situation.

PP: People like B G Vergehse do not articulate the spirit of the times. His anecdotes can teach you lessons but he quotes them selectively and draw selective lessons. Although his heart is in right place, he does not understand the current real Indian spirit.

Swaminathan was once an ardent advocate of Green Revolution today he concedes the mistake of chemical pesticide induced revolution. Today he says, it is a win-win situation and when disasters take place tomorrow he will again say he was wrong. This does not help.

GK: How do react to the non-transparency in the Union Ministry of Water Resources?

Our Water Ministry is behaving in a feudal manner. Our colonial rulers recognized the customary rights over land but our own government has usurped that right and the same is being done in the case of water.

GK: How to raise debate at the district and Panchayat level about the issue of immense significance in the light of the experiences from Narmada movement?

Only shared interest can lead to a movement. Partisan community interests come in the way of a massive movement. Without a sense of community, conflict of interests emerges and creates a situation where it seems that the movement is fighting a dubious battle. There is a need for an informed public debate and discourse. An uneducated mechanic knows how to make his vehicle. Therefore, the public domain ought to remain open for the common man to join the discourse.

Even today issue of water and river is considered to be a subject of interest to specialist-scientists only. But the moment any issue gets related to the bread and butter around the globe even lay persons and supposedly non-scientifically inclined actors get forced in public affairs to get interested in the issue under question.

There is lack of awareness about the fact that river linking will affect the lives of the affluent as traumatically as it does to the poor and the usually invisible sections of underprivileged citizens. The interdependence of entire community on water and rivers cannot be disputed.

National and class interests often eclipse the rational and the equitable. The concerned citizens are becoming wary of the conduct of ongoing river linking negotiations and are getting perilously desensitized by the sanitised information being provided to them. There is an urgent need to train and nourish environmental leadership particularly in the context of globalisation and the consequent commodification of natural resources. The Narmada judgment on refugees by the Supreme Court was patently absurd. It is a lesson for the movements to abstain from seeking judicial intervention.

GK: The premise of the project on the fact that there are Surplus Rivers and there are Deficit Rivers. Does this argument hold water?

PP: I do not buy this argument. The attempt is on to make sure that citizens do not ask inconvenient questions. Why talk of big rivers, first of all revive and clean the small rivers which are dying by recharging them

What do we put first- the people or river linking? Does our discussion begin and end with the impact of river linking on the lives of the people or do we concede the possibility of people making a difference- however small in this process? I think that it is becoming increasingly difficult to evade this issue.

GK: Where does the accountability lie in Proposal to interlink the rivers?

PP: The assignment of responsibility for the mishap is missing in our polity. Accountability entails description- narration, scientific interrogation, explanation, accusation, and justification, which are entwined in a very complex manner therefore our bureaucracy, is wary of being accountable.

GK: What is the role of Civil Society on the issue of River Linking?

It can define, identify and nurse informed debate both at the local and national levels. It can not only keep those working in and without the government at the grass roots well informed about facts and figures but can also make them aware of the dominant issues and linkages.

For those exercising the leadership function at the national level it is not enough to be an active and articulate participant in the ongoing dialogue. They must be in a position to appreciate and safeguard the vital interests of their constituents.

The balancing of the local parochial with the national, regional and multinational is dicey. We can cope with the issues at stake only if role of the civil society is potent enough that it gets effective recognition.

Erosion of the clout of public opinion and it usurpation by the judiciary is certainly not great jurisprudence. The river system does not follow the time scale useful to the proposal for interlinking of rivers, which was outlined in the apex court suggestion.

In the parliament for whatever it is worth it is the vote that matters. Therefore, civil society has to be a realist in assessing in ascertaining and augmenting their worth.