The low availability of irrigation water through major projects in the basin indicates that it is very difficult to tame the basin rivers to harness their surface runoff even for use within the basin.
The technical problems involved in the Interlinking Rivers (ILR) project are so numerous that it is virtually impossible to export any Brahmaputra water outside the basin.

Interlinking Rivers is merely a vote-catching project of the ruling party to woo voters of the water-stress basins. The fact that not even one foundation stone has been so far laid on the eve of the ensuing
elections, it is clear that the ruling party doesn't want to displease the voters of the so-called water-surplus basins, says Professor Jagdiswara Rao.

The only way additional irrigation water could be made available to the rain-dependent agricultural land in the Brahmaputra basin is through large-scale harnessing of groundwater through high-yielding
wells in the riverbeds and resorting to construction of subsurface dams to counteract any undesirable decline of groundwater levels, Rao added.

Earlier Manju Menon wrote, Let's seek information from the Task Force (TF) on Interlinking Rivers (ILR)...but it seems unlikely that we'll have anything coming from their end in good time. So let's communicate with the state govts and the President.

I agree with the suggestion made below. All those who attended the Pune discussion and those who also had the opportunity last year to hear Suresh Prabhu speak at the Symbiosis Institute in Pune last year would fully agree with point no 3 below!

Also, we need to move on that suggestion that came up at the Pune meeting to suggest an acceptable method of information sharing by the TF. The World Commission on Dams (WCD) process and the principles laid down by it would be most helpful in this exercise.

She wrote in reponse to Major General Sudhir Bombatkere' message saying, The Time Table in the revealing RESOLUTION states that Action Plans I and II are to be completed by 30.4.2003 and 31.7.2003 respectively. These dates are long past. It is a pity that I omitted to raise this point at the 11 February Meeting at Pune. The fact is that I am unable to cope with the numbers and volume of e-mails and data that I receive.... Yet the sheer volumes speak for the tremendous concern that so many thinking people have for the ILR project.

If TARGET DATES for ACTION Plans to prepare DPRs are included in the TERMS OF REFERENCE (S.No.3) of the TF, then I cannot see how the Chairman can justify stating that the whole thing is a concept and not necessarily a project.

Speaking militarily, the TF is performing a defensive holding action to counter the queries/objections of ILR project dissidents and keep them engaged while quietly preparing a detailed "offensive" to move to project implementation and a fait accompli that will bye-pass the dissidents' actions and thus nullify them. A fait accompli will be supported even by the judiciary as has happened in the past in innumerable cases.

Sankar Ray said referring to the unwarranted remarks of the Task Force about the River Linking Discussion Group at Pune, I don't understand why are we not protesting against the intransigience of Suresh Prabhu. Are we to honour our democratic polity or foster an irrational subservience towards a minister ? Is he a church for us ? We should solidly support Maj Gen (retd) Vombatkere.

According to a Press Release of the National Alliance for People's Movement, "The Inter linking of rivers (ILR) project is not the only panacea for the water problem of India nor the project may stand as it is," said Suresh Prabhu, the chairman of the Task Force on ILR (TF-ILR), in a debate held in Pune on February 11. He also conceded that there were no detailed studies ready regarding the links in this project and said that it may not also be necessary to undertake all the declared 30 links all over India. He declared to undertake only two links at present, the Parvati-Kalisindh and Ken - Betwa links. He made it clear that the cost of the dam will have to be worked out and the earlier figure of Rs. 5,60,000 crores was a mere a general statement.

However, despite the repeated requests, neither Prabhu nor his officials could give a concrete time-frame when these pre-feasibility studies would be made available. Nevertheless he assured making public all the ‘comprehensive reports’ which are still under preparation, along with continued dialogue with what he called as the ‘civil society’. "Pune debate is only the first such step. Such debates should take place every part of country and the TF is ready to financially support such exercise in dialogue if there is any concrete proposal. There is a need to institutionalize the process of civil society dialogue.", he declared.

The National Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM) has organized a first such debate with the Task Force on ‘Drought and Water Problem: Inter Linking Rivers – Is it real Solution?’, in Pune. It was a part programmes of the Birth Centenary of veteran Socialist leader S.M Joshi. Apart from Prabhu, the TF Secretary C.C. Patel and Gopal Krishnan, pertinent issues were raised by Ramaswami Iyer, former Secretary of Union water Resources Ministry, Biksham Gujja of Wildlife Fund of Hyderabad, Maj.Gen.(Retd.) Sudhir Vombatkere, a structural engineer from Mysore , Vijay Paranjapye, an economist and water-planning expert from Pune and Medha Patkar, the National Coordinator of NAPM. The SM Joshi Foundation Hall in Pune was overflowing with the eager people from all walks of life, including the prominent activists, political workers and experts.

While the officials in the Task Force, who accompanied Prabhu, enlightened the audience about the need for water and the increased food production – which everyone knew and agreed to, Prabhu could not give a definite assurance about making available even the pre-feasibility reports within a time frame. Instead he put the onus on the state governments. He informed that the detailed and comprehensive studies of every link is still being prepared, and everything including the terms of reference (TOR), would be put on the website for suggestions from everybody concerned. He said, " Inter-basin transfer through river linking is not the only solution; it should be a part of a composite planning. As the studies proceed, some of the links in the proposed thirty links may appear unnecessary. Linking Ganga with the Peninsular rivers will be undertaken after meeting needs of Nepal, Bangladesh and the Gangetic states in India. Only flood-waters will form part of inter-basin transfer".

Not in Planing Process

Iyer pointed out areas ambiguities in the ILR plan. First whether it is a project or a mere concept – as Prabhu often claims. Second, what is the state of preparedness about this project. While dealing with the Bangladesh objections regarding diverting Ganga waters, TF claims that ILR is still a concept, while internally the finality of the project is sought to be stressed. He questioned the ambiguity about linking Himalayan rivers with Peninsular rivers, as this may be main cause of support from the states like Tamil Nadu for ILR. Distinguishing between the two situations of flood and drought on one hand and surplus and deficient states on the other, he stressed the need to ascertain whether the deficiency is due to the mismanagement and a better management of available water resources can alleviate the situation to a considerable extent. Fourthly, there is no rigorous analysis needed for a project in the Planning process, of which the ILR has never been a part. If it is included in a Plan, the latter will explode. The private and foreign funding will distort the project. The problem is that we do not have any information of the ILR. A dialogue is possible if all concerned are provided information.

Questioning Claims

Medha Patkar wondered how Prabhu could claim the debate as sign of openness on part of the TF, as it is continuing to make the project a fait accompli. She demanded the complete information and plans before the project becomes irreversible. The ILR has no sanction of Planning Commission, nor any ministry had approved it. It needs an in-depth social and environmental impact analysis. Whether the proposed irrigation is for growing cash-crops or for food-grains. For a real food-security, we have to revise the crop pattern, land-distribution, public distribution system and pricing and marketing of agricultural produce. She questioned the conflict between the power and irrigation purposes. Giving a detailed analysis of the proposed Ken-Betwa and Perimbilkulam links that would be immediately undertaken by the TF, she pointed that instead of intra-basin water planning, the government is more keen on inter-basin water transfers. Contrary to the claims of flood protection by the large structures, which ahs been a failure hitherto, there is a need for flood planning. She questioned the attempts for foreign-funding of the project and the danger of privatization of water.

Vombatkere dealt with the specific claims by the ILR-proponents – like floods and sediments and water-sharing disputes. He dismissed the static model of ‘donor’ and ‘receiver’ basins. The 20 year old problem Satluj-Yamuna Link canal could not be solved as yet. He pointed out the irrationalities abound in a single link like Kosi-Ghaghra, which exacerbate already existing serious problem of waterlogging of land.

Vijay Paranjapye made it clear that he could not criticize or accept the ILR- project, because he was not provided the relevant information and documentation regarding feasibility studies and detailed project reports despite repeated requests for more than a year. He wondered how anyone could declare the ILR as an article of faith when one does not know without any studies. "On the basis of a shred of information provided by the TF, it seems only 30% of the drought prone districts in India are covered by the inter linking". The states like Maharashtra must strengthen their tottering and bankrupt outfits like Krishna Valley Development Corporation instead of spending the money on ILR project, which is not at all going to benefit the needy areas. Paranjapye gave amny instances of irrational plans in the ILR. He supported the suggestion by Prabhu for an institutionalized procedures and structure for integrating the people’s opinions and preferences. Earlier, Gujja asked the TF to allocate some portion of its money for the research by the non-governmental organizations regarding thew project.

The two officials did not answer the specific issues raised. Instead they dealt with the issues like need of the water, extent of drought, increasing need of food grains for 1.8 billion people by AD 2050 and the increased need of water - which can be had, albeit, only by way of Inter linking of rivers. Patel opined that the problem of rehabilitation of the affected people should not be overblown and must be seen holistically with the provision of drinking water to rural areas. Gopal Krishnan felt that the professional skills of engineers should not be challenged by anybody outside of this profession. Large number serving or retired of engineers too attended the debate.

Now that the Chairman has agreed to provide the information and documents, further dialogue and an institutionalization of this process, there is a scope for people’s organizations, groups and institutions from all over India to take the process further.

Prabhu made some unwarranted remarks against the two participants, Gujja and Vombatkere, for writing hostile emails on ‘riverlink mail group’. Prabhu also took objection to the name toxiclink, which according to him is branding the ILR as ‘toxic’.

Dr Sudhirendar Sharma welcomed B Yerramraju to the riverlink group saying, "I wonder where were you all these days. Your words of wisdom are indeed enlightening. I only wish others in the discussion group take note! You have right to your opinion and why not, we are an independent country. But so are our rivers. If you have to think on their behalf, as they are living systems but can't unfortunately speak, you need to understand the rivers a little better."

This was in response to B Yerramraju's assertion on "River Diversion on the Way". Yerram had said, We have a responsibility for the future generations. We were all part of only 50bn or less when we were in teh adulthood. Today the population crossed 100bn and we are part of that for a shorter life than we had spent so far. Water resources for the farm sector have been dwindling in all the present irrigation intensive States like Punjab, haryana,Tamilnadu,Karnataaka, Andhra Pradesh and people are now turning to microirrigation and precision farming.

He added, still more than 35 percent of population do not have drinking water not to speak of safe drinking water. We have rivers that dump water into the sea wastefully. Think it over. If we did not take up this project of riverlinking it was because of foolish assessment of financial resources at the time When Dr.K.L. Rao made the proposal. At least now wisdom dawned and through this process floods can be prevented; water resources would be available for farming and drinking more effectively. Use the knowledge of Engineering for effectivising resources and not for a dogmatic or a doctrinaire approach. We can zonise river linking.

First we should attempt at thinking of rivers as part of the State Empires that gave rise to riparian attitutdes adn wasteful and already wasted resources. The 'great' engineers built dams at the tail ends of rivers instead of at points where waters were gushing on pureregional considerations. Let us for once think of nation as nation. Pass on to others if you feel like, Yerramraju concluded.

Yerramraju wrote the above in response to what Major General Sudhir Vombatkere had written. He wrote,
Engineers and technologists have asked me, "Why are you getting emotional about displacement of people and environment destruction?" My reply has always been that we need to get emotional because the problems faced by our country and its people are because we give too much weightage to intelligence and matters of the head, and too little to matters of the heart. It is better for the country to have a scientist or engineer of average ability who has a kind and honest heart than a superlative (and crooked?) engineer who cannot think beyond his (outdated) textbooks. And so for politicians and the Great Indian Middle Class, if you haven't heard that one before too.

Unless people in much larger numbers begin to take active part in staking their own claim to water as part of the right to life and livelihood, things will move far too slowly in our times when the changes of IMF-WB-WTO's recipe for globalization are accelerating.


P.S: This exchange took place on River Link Discussion Group.