The document discusses the Indian River-linking Project which aims to transfer water from surplus river basins in northern and northeastern India to water-deficit areas in the south and west through a network of 30 links and canals spanning 14,900 km. The multi-billion dollar project is proposed to provide irrigation, flood control, hydropower and regional development benefits. However, critics argue it will be extremely costly, displace millions of people, degrade downstream environments, and not consider interests of upstream states like Nepal. There are also doubts about the feasibility of large-scale inter-basin water transfers and effectiveness of building more dams.

1. The Indian River-linking Project: Development or DisasterThe Indian River-linking Project: Development or Disaster
1. A. K. M. Anwaruzzaman, Sr. Lecturer1. A. K. M. Anwaruzzaman, Sr. Lecturer
Deptt. Of Geography, Malda College, MaldaDeptt. Of Geography, Malda College, Malda
2. Ms Nurjahan Khatun, Sr. Lecturer,2. Ms Nurjahan Khatun, Sr. Lecturer,
Deptt. Of Geography, Berhampore College, MurshidabadDeptt. Of Geography, Berhampore College, Murshidabad
3. Ms Swati Mollah, Lecturer,3. Ms Swati Mollah, Lecturer,
Deptt. Of Geography, Dumkal College, MurshidabadDeptt. Of Geography, Dumkal College, Murshidabad

2. The Indian River-linking Project: A Geologic,The Indian River-linking Project: A Geologic,
Ecological, and Socio-economic PerspectivesEcological, and Socio-economic Perspectives
……………………………………..Sujolang sufolang maloyaj shitalang..Sujolang sufolang maloyaj shitalang
Shashyo shyamolang……………………………………..Shashyo shyamolang……………………………………..
…………………………………………Vindhya Himachal Yamuna GangaVindhya Himachal Yamuna Ganga
Uchhalo jalodhitaranga………………………………….Uchhalo jalodhitaranga………………………………….

3. A brief history of ILRPA brief history of ILRP
 1839: Arthur Cotton advocated inter linking of1839: Arthur Cotton advocated inter linking of
rivers for inland water transport instead ofrivers for inland water transport instead of
building railways.building railways.
 1972: K L Rao, ex-irrigation minister envisaged1972: K L Rao, ex-irrigation minister envisaged
‘National Water Grid’.‘National Water Grid’.
 1974: Captain Dastur propogated ‘Garland of1974: Captain Dastur propogated ‘Garland of
Canals’.Canals’.
 1982: National Water Development Agency1982: National Water Development Agency
created to ‘ carry out survey work and preparecreated to ‘ carry out survey work and prepare
feasibility reports on ‘river link project’.feasibility reports on ‘river link project’.
 1987: The national water policy stated that it’s1987: The national water policy stated that it’s
prime goal is to ‘inter link the national rivers’.prime goal is to ‘inter link the national rivers’.

4. history continued………….history continued………….
 2002: Ex-president (APJ) revived the project by2002: Ex-president (APJ) revived the project by
mentioning it in the independence day speech.mentioning it in the independence day speech.
 2002: Hon’ble Supreme Court passed a directive2002: Hon’ble Supreme Court passed a directive
to the GOI to inter connect the rivers by 2016 into the GOI to inter connect the rivers by 2016 in
response to a PIL filled by one Mr. Ranjit Kumar.response to a PIL filled by one Mr. Ranjit Kumar.
 NDA Govt formed a Task force to implement theNDA Govt formed a Task force to implement the
directive in the form of ILRP.directive in the form of ILRP.
 UPA Govt promised to review but intend toUPA Govt promised to review but intend to
proceed with ILRP.proceed with ILRP.
 UPA Govt replaced Task Force by high poweredUPA Govt replaced Task Force by high powered
inter ministerial committee which move forwardinter ministerial committee which move forward
with the peninsular component of the ILRPwith the peninsular component of the ILRP..

6. Garland of CanalsGarland of Canals

7. Abandoned ILRPAbandoned ILRP

8. Source: Dr. J. Rao, 2003

9. The Ganges = 2950 km; 1,050,00 sq.km; 480 million
people; 71% cropland (15% irrigated)
The Brahmaputra = 2880 km; 580, 000 sq.km; 110 million
people; 29% cropland (7% irrigated)
http://rainbow.idgo.columbia.edu/ees/SIPA/Projections
The Ganges &Brahmaputra Watersheds

10. River Basins in India

11. Source: R. Iyer, 2004
River-linking Project: Physiography of the Region
Priority Links

12. Rainfall Distribution in IndiaRainfall Distribution in India
Too much rain
Too little rain

13. Surface Run-off in Indian RiversSurface Run-off in Indian Rivers
73
525
629
48
12
28
67
111
70
21
6 11 4
46
15
87
114
23 16 15
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Indus
G
anga
B
rahm
aputra
B
arak
Subernarekha
B
rahm
ani-B
aitarni
M
ahanadi
G
odavariK
rishnaC
auveryPennar
M
ahi
Sabarm
ati
N
arm
ada
Tapi
Tapito
Tadri
Tadrito
Kanyakum
ari
M
ahanadito
P
ennar
Pennarto
K
anyakum
ari
Kachchh/Saurashtra
Cubickm/year
Source: Dr. J. Rao, 2003
Major Targets for Diversion

14. Diversion from “Surplus” toDiversion from “Surplus” to
“Deficit” Regions“Deficit” Regions
Modified from Dr. J. Rao, 2003
Major Diversion Routes

15. Components of ILRPComponents of ILRP

19. Arguments for the Indian River-Arguments for the Indian River-
linking Proposallinking Proposal
 To equalize theTo equalize the spatial-temporal variationsspatial-temporal variations in rainfall inin rainfall in
India (11 mm in Rajasthan – 12,000 mm in Assam –India (11 mm in Rajasthan – 12,000 mm in Assam –
1200 mm is national Average)1200 mm is national Average)
 To utilizeTo utilize “surplus” & “unused”“surplus” & “unused” river flow of north andriver flow of north and
north-east innorth-east in “water-deficit”“water-deficit” areas in southern & westernareas in southern & western
IndiaIndia
 To control twin problem ofTo control twin problem of flooding-droughtflooding-drought in the basinin the basin
 ToTo irrigateirrigate additionaladditional 40 mha40 mha (400,000 sq.km)(400,000 sq.km)
 To produce additionalTo produce additional food-grainsfood-grains for estimated 1.5for estimated 1.5
billion people by 2050billion people by 2050
 To generateTo generate 35,000 MW35,000 MW of electricityof electricity
 Additional benefitsAdditional benefits: flood control, navigation, water: flood control, navigation, water
supply, inland fisheries, salinity control, and pollutionsupply, inland fisheries, salinity control, and pollution
control, employment generationcontrol, employment generation

20. Cost & Timeline of the ProjectCost & Timeline of the Project
 Proposed cost = $120 billion (Indian Rs. 5,600 billion (atProposed cost = $120 billion (Indian Rs. 5,600 billion (at
the end at 2002 price) = 25% of India’s GDP of 2002) andthe end at 2002 price) = 25% of India’s GDP of 2002) and
250% of tax revenue, which is likely to be much higher.250% of tax revenue, which is likely to be much higher.
 Unprecedented cost escalation and time over run due toUnprecedented cost escalation and time over run due to
litigation and political upheaval and environmentallitigation and political upheaval and environmental
opposition may go up to 250% to 300%.opposition may go up to 250% to 300%.
 For comparison, India’s annual budget = Rs. 3,300For comparison, India’s annual budget = Rs. 3,300
billion; and annual irrigation budget of states = Rs. 10billion; and annual irrigation budget of states = Rs. 10
billion.billion.
 Cost may exceed even Rs.10,000 billion.Cost may exceed even Rs.10,000 billion.
 Progress report by April, 2004Progress report by April, 2004
 Prioritized Ken-Betwa (UP-MP) link @ Rs. 40 billion &Prioritized Ken-Betwa (UP-MP) link @ Rs. 40 billion &
Parbati-Kalisindh-Chambal link @Rs. 30.8 billionParbati-Kalisindh-Chambal link @Rs. 30.8 billion
(Rajasthan-MP signed a MoU):(Rajasthan-MP signed a MoU):
http://www.hindu.com/2004/01/27/stories/2004012705980100.htmhttp://www.hindu.com/2004/01/27/stories/2004012705980100.htm andand http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_561999,0008.htmhttp://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_561999,0008.htm
 Feasibility study by 2008 (Rs. 1.5 billion)Feasibility study by 2008 (Rs. 1.5 billion)
 Completion by 2016 (dictated by the Supreme Court of India onCompletion by 2016 (dictated by the Supreme Court of India on
October 31, 2002)October 31, 2002)

21. How Expensive is the ILRP?How Expensive is the ILRP?
 Cost/benefit analysisCost/benefit analysis

India’s annual budget = Rs. 3,300 billion (i.e.India’s annual budget = Rs. 3,300 billion (i.e.
59% of river-linking’s cost of Rs. 5,600 billion)59% of river-linking’s cost of Rs. 5,600 billion)
Ref: The Hindu, Feb. 1, 2004, ChennaiRef: The Hindu, Feb. 1, 2004, Chennai

India will need international financialIndia will need international financial
assistance (e.g. from WB, ADB, Texas Stateassistance (e.g. from WB, ADB, Texas State
Govt. with the help from Sam Kannappan – aGovt. with the help from Sam Kannappan – a
NRI).NRI).

Current mega projects worth Rs. 80,000Current mega projects worth Rs. 80,000
crores stalled for funds.crores stalled for funds.

22. Summary of the ProjectSummary of the Project
 Transfer of 173 BCM of water from Brahmaputra &Transfer of 173 BCM of water from Brahmaputra &
Ganges rivers to rivers in south & west via 30 linksGanges rivers to rivers in south & west via 30 links
(14,900 km long and 200 m wide)(14,900 km long and 200 m wide)

14 Himalayan links (on the Ganges-Brahmaputra and their14 Himalayan links (on the Ganges-Brahmaputra and their
tributaries, mainly affecting Bangladesh and NE Indian States)tributaries, mainly affecting Bangladesh and NE Indian States)

16 Peninsular links (mainly affecting middle states in India)16 Peninsular links (mainly affecting middle states in India)
 35 reservoirs on various rivers in India, Bhutan, & Nepal35 reservoirs on various rivers in India, Bhutan, & Nepal
 2,940-4,000 sq.km. land will be acquired2,940-4,000 sq.km. land will be acquired

Can be as much as 8,000 sq. km (the Assam Tribune:Can be as much as 8,000 sq. km (the Assam Tribune: Jan 18, 2004Jan 18, 2004))
 4,83,409 people will be displaced for 16 peninsular links4,83,409 people will be displaced for 16 peninsular links
onlyonly

For the record, 400,000 people displaced from Narmada valleyFor the record, 400,000 people displaced from Narmada valley
are not rehabilitated yetare not rehabilitated yet

23. Sources: Kalyanaraman 2003 & J. Rao 2003
Counter Point: No Surplus Water in
Brahmaputra
2
100 100
2 0 1.9
53
180
110
3.6
49.4
2.4
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Water
Volume
(mill.hec.m)
Cultivated
Area(1000
sq.km)
Population
(Million)
Water
Needed
(mill.hec.m)
Surplus
Water
(mill.hec.m)
Utilizable
water
(m.hec.m)
Kaveri Brahmaputra
ILRP Proponents Reality

24. Live Storage in Indian RiversLive Storage in Indian Rivers
14
37
1.1 0.7
4.8
8.5
20
34
7.4
0.4
4.8
3.8
6.6
8.5
7.1
10
1.6 1.4
4.3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
IndusG
anga
Brahm
aputra/Barak
Subarnrekha
Brahm
ani-Baitarni
M
ahanadi
G
odavariKrishnaC
auveryPennar
M
ahi
Sabarm
ati
N
arm
ada
Tapi
Tapito
Tadri
Tadrito
K
anyakum
ari
M
ahanadito
Pennar
Pennarto
Kanyakum
ari
Kutch/S
aurashtra
Source: Dr. J. Rao, 2003
12 major dams and
upstream diversion
Cause for Inter-
state dispute

25. Counter Point: EnvironmentalCounter Point: Environmental
Degradation in Downstream areasDegradation in Downstream areas
 Environmental & Ecological issuesEnvironmental & Ecological issues

Impacts on downstream environments, navigation,Impacts on downstream environments, navigation,
agriculture, industry, fisheries, salinity intrusion,agriculture, industry, fisheries, salinity intrusion,
mangrove forest (the Sundarban), and coastalmangrove forest (the Sundarban), and coastal
ecosystems in Bangladesh.ecosystems in Bangladesh.

Bengal delta (Both in Bangladesh and West BengalBengal delta (Both in Bangladesh and West Bengal
will undergo erosion and submergence due to the lackwill undergo erosion and submergence due to the lack
of sufficient fresh water and sediment supply.of sufficient fresh water and sediment supply.

Reshaping of the geography of the regions.Reshaping of the geography of the regions.

Ecological disaster and loss of flora and fauna.Ecological disaster and loss of flora and fauna.

26. Societal impactSocietal impact
 Displacement likely to be in millionsDisplacement likely to be in millions
 Entire communities, villages, tribes, andEntire communities, villages, tribes, and
cultures will be dismemberedcultures will be dismembered
 Rising inter state disputes and politicalRising inter state disputes and political
fightsfights
 One step forward towards privatization ofOne step forward towards privatization of
water resourceswater resources

27. Counter Point: Ineffective Big Dams
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
<100% >100%<200% >200%<300% >300%<400% >400%<500% >500%
Sedimentation rates more or less than predicted rates
Numberofdams
D. Mishra, Dec. 17, 2003: riverlink@yahoogroups.com
Did not meet expectationsMet expectations

28. Counter Point: UpstreamCounter Point: Upstream
Interests Are Not ConsideredInterests Are Not Considered

Nepal’s interests are not a top priority in the planNepal’s interests are not a top priority in the plan

Flood Control in Assam will not be addressed sinceFlood Control in Assam will not be addressed since
the diversion dam will be downstream of flood pronethe diversion dam will be downstream of flood prone
areasareas

Assam is upstream of Bangladesh, but downstream ofAssam is upstream of Bangladesh, but downstream of
China; and experts favors inclusion of riparian nationsChina; and experts favors inclusion of riparian nations
in water resources management plansin water resources management plans

Water-logging upstream of dams, and increasedWater-logging upstream of dams, and increased
salinity in irrigated soils (Rajasthan is the case insalinity in irrigated soils (Rajasthan is the case in
point)point)

China is planning to dam the Tsangpo (upperChina is planning to dam the Tsangpo (upper
Brahmaputra) to generate 40,000 MW electricity andBrahmaputra) to generate 40,000 MW electricity and
irrigate the additional 40 Mhec (400,000 sq.km) areairrigate the additional 40 Mhec (400,000 sq.km) area

29. Counter Point: Inequalityin Water Sharing with Nepal
14,000
23,000
29,000
460 1,600 850
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
Sarada Barrage Koshi Barrage Gandaki
Cusec
India Nepal
Ref: Roy Laifungbam, SARP, March 2, 2004

30. Points to PonderPoints to Ponder
 International dispute over common riversInternational dispute over common rivers

Bangladesh opposes to any Inter-basin transfer of riversBangladesh opposes to any Inter-basin transfer of rivers

China asked AIRC to produce a feasibility report for B-China asked AIRC to produce a feasibility report for B-
PutraPutra
http://www.lancang-mekong.org/English_site/Eng_projects/eng_projects_brahmapuhttp://www.lancang-mekong.org/English_site/Eng_projects/eng_projects_brahmapu
-China wants to generate 40,000 MW of hydroelectricity from B-Putra-China wants to generate 40,000 MW of hydroelectricity from B-Putra
 Lack of transparency & credibility on Indian Govt.’s partLack of transparency & credibility on Indian Govt.’s part

In spite of The Freedom of Information Bill, 2002 published in theIn spite of The Freedom of Information Bill, 2002 published in the
Gazette of India as Act No. 5 of 2003, no details about the river-Gazette of India as Act No. 5 of 2003, no details about the river-
linking scheme are available to publiclinking scheme are available to public

What happened to RTI?What happened to RTI?
 Technical issues (e.g., topography, reservoirTechnical issues (e.g., topography, reservoir
induced seismicity, sedimentation behind dams)induced seismicity, sedimentation behind dams)

31. Dams Around Bangladesh: Cause For ConcernDams Around Bangladesh: Cause For Concern

32. What next ?

33. Point To Ponder: Lessons From Other ProjectsPoint To Ponder: Lessons From Other Projects
Are Not EncouragingAre Not Encouraging
 Central Asia - Aral Sea in Former USSRCentral Asia - Aral Sea in Former USSR

Largest human-induced environmental degradation caused by upstream diversionLargest human-induced environmental degradation caused by upstream diversion

Augmentation plan is being consideredAugmentation plan is being considered
 China - Yangtze-Yellow River Diversion PlanChina - Yangtze-Yellow River Diversion Plan

1300 km long canals1300 km long canals

$59 billion$59 billion

Totalitarian govt. plans at the face of oppositionTotalitarian govt. plans at the face of opposition
 Spain – Diversion Plan from North to SouthSpain – Diversion Plan from North to South

Postponed by the newly elected govt. & then abandoned in June 2004Postponed by the newly elected govt. & then abandoned in June 2004
 USA – Colorado & Klamath Rivers DiversionUSA – Colorado & Klamath Rivers Diversion

Colorado delta has declined to 5% of original sizeColorado delta has declined to 5% of original size
 Australia – Snowy River DiversionAustralia – Snowy River Diversion

Environmental degradation is monumentalEnvironmental degradation is monumental

Scheme is modified in recent yearsScheme is modified in recent years
 Amu Darya project in erstwhile USSRAmu Darya project in erstwhile USSR

Unimaginable impact on the Aral Sea.Unimaginable impact on the Aral Sea.
 GAP Project in TurkeyGAP Project in Turkey

Political hotbed between Iran, Iraq and TurkeyPolitical hotbed between Iran, Iraq and Turkey

34. Counter Point: Not Everyone inCounter Point: Not Everyone in
India AgreesIndia Agrees
 Dispute between states and co-riparianDispute between states and co-riparian
countries in the basincountries in the basin

Opposed:Opposed: Kerala, Bihar, West Bengal,Kerala, Bihar, West Bengal,
Assam, Punjab, Chhatisgarh, and GoaAssam, Punjab, Chhatisgarh, and Goa

Conditionally agreed:Conditionally agreed: Uttar Pradesh,Uttar Pradesh,
Gujarat, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Orissa,Gujarat, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Orissa,
and Maharashtraand Maharashtra

Agreed:Agreed: Madhya Pradesh, Haryana, RajastanMadhya Pradesh, Haryana, Rajastan
and Tamil Naduand Tamil Nadu
Source: Sangeetha Sriram @Source: Sangeetha Sriram @ riverlink@yahoogroups.comriverlink@yahoogroups.com, Dec. 25, 2003, Dec. 25, 2003

35. AgreementAgreement
 Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam, A B Bajpayee, GOIDr. APJ Abdul Kalam, A B Bajpayee, GOI
 Supreme Court ( C J Kripal’s bench)Supreme Court ( C J Kripal’s bench)
 T N Govt and political and other playersT N Govt and political and other players
such as Rajanikant, T N Seshan, Samsuch as Rajanikant, T N Seshan, Sam
Kannappan (NRI)Kannappan (NRI)
 Large contractors, MNCs, LendingLarge contractors, MNCs, Lending
agencies, Farmers in the dry regionsagencies, Farmers in the dry regions

36. DisagreementDisagreement
 EnvironmentalistsEnvironmentalists::
Vandana Shiva, Medha Patkar, S NVandana Shiva, Medha Patkar, S N
Bahuguna, Bittu Sehgal, CSE expertsBahuguna, Bittu Sehgal, CSE experts
 Water ExpertsWater Experts: Ramaswamy Iyer,: Ramaswamy Iyer,
Surinder SharmaSurinder Sharma
 People’s MovementsPeople’s Movements: Tarun Bharat: Tarun Bharat
Sangha, NAPMSangha, NAPM

37. Supreme Court of India on ILRPSupreme Court of India on ILRP
 As a result of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL)As a result of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
case, the Supreme Court has issued an order incase, the Supreme Court has issued an order in
October 2002 to consider ILRP by 2016.October 2002 to consider ILRP by 2016.
 Questions remained to be answered:Questions remained to be answered:

How can the Judges decide on a matter that involveHow can the Judges decide on a matter that involve
specific knowledge of geology, hydrology, ecology,specific knowledge of geology, hydrology, ecology,
and sociology?and sociology?

Do the Judges of a country have authority to decideDo the Judges of a country have authority to decide
on Tran boundary resources that belong to countrieson Tran boundary resources that belong to countries
other than India?other than India?

Can similar PIL cases be filed by citizens andCan similar PIL cases be filed by citizens and
environmental groups as a counter to the proposedenvironmental groups as a counter to the proposed
ILRP in India?ILRP in India?

38. Partial Sources: S. Kalyanaraman 2003
Arguments & Counter Arguments
65
200
500400
1000
1500
520
180 134
22 95 160
0
500
1000
1500
2000
1951 2003 2050
Foodgrain Production (mtons) Population in India (million)
Per Capitia Water (100 m3) Irrigated area (mh)
Fuzzy Math

39. Upstream dams & diversions that
cause low flow to Bangladesh
Counter Point: Ganges Needs Augmentation Not Diversion

40. Counter Point: Irrigation NeedsCounter Point: Irrigation Needs
for Donor Statesfor Donor States
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100 Punjab
Pondicherry
UP
Delhi
Haryana
Bihar
W.Bengal
AP
Rajastan
Orissa
Sikkim
MP
Himachal
Tripura
Maghalaya
Assam
Arunachal
Mizoram
Percentofcroplandirrigated
Source: Dr. J. Rao, 2003
Donor states in need for
improved irrigation

41. Counter Point: Drought ProneCounter Point: Drought Prone
Areas Will Not BenefitAreas Will Not Benefit
Out of the
ILRP Loop

42. What Are the Alternatives?What Are the Alternatives?
 Management of water on a local scaleManagement of water on a local scale
 Improve efficiency (from 30% to over 40%) of water use in irrigationImprove efficiency (from 30% to over 40%) of water use in irrigation
 Change crop patterns and cyclesChange crop patterns and cycles
 Rainwater harvestingRainwater harvesting

Case studies in Rajasthan, Maharashtra, & GujqratCase studies in Rajasthan, Maharashtra, & Gujqrat
 Sub-surface dams on riverbeds to increase the base flowSub-surface dams on riverbeds to increase the base flow (Rao, 2004)(Rao, 2004)
 Exploration of groundwaterExploration of groundwater
 Ganga-Kumari National Waterways ProjectGanga-Kumari National Waterways Project

Intercepting rivers with three loop-canals cum reservoirs in theIntercepting rivers with three loop-canals cum reservoirs in the
Himalayan, central and southern regionsHimalayan, central and southern regions http://newstodaynet.com/27jan/rf9.htmhttp://newstodaynet.com/27jan/rf9.htm
 Diverting water from upper reaches in Brahmaputra via tunnelsDiverting water from upper reaches in Brahmaputra via tunnels
through the Himalayasthrough the Himalayas
 Desalinization plants along coastal areas (Indian President favors it)Desalinization plants along coastal areas (Indian President favors it)
http://www.hindu.com/2003/12/18/stories/2003121803111400.htmhttp://www.hindu.com/2003/12/18/stories/2003121803111400.htm
 Integrated watershed management plan among co-riparianIntegrated watershed management plan among co-riparian
countriescountries

43. The Bottom LineThe Bottom Line
 The proposed Indian river-linking project (ILRP)The proposed Indian river-linking project (ILRP)
is not based on understanding of theis not based on understanding of the
environment and ecosystem that rivers supportenvironment and ecosystem that rivers support
 ILRP is not a feasible project on technical,ILRP is not a feasible project on technical,
environmental, socio-economic, and legalenvironmental, socio-economic, and legal
groundsgrounds
 ILRP will likely to cause tremendous devastationILRP will likely to cause tremendous devastation
to the environment and economy of Bangladesh,to the environment and economy of Bangladesh,
India, and NepalIndia, and Nepal
 A watershed-approach in water resourcesA watershed-approach in water resources
management is needed in order to achievemanagement is needed in order to achieve
prosperity and stability in the G-B-M basinprosperity and stability in the G-B-M basin

44. How Should We Deal with OurHow Should We Deal with Our
Conflicts Over Water Resources?Conflicts Over Water Resources?
““Come together, speak in concord, letCome together, speak in concord, let
your minds comprehend alike, let ouryour minds comprehend alike, let our
efforts be united, let our hearts be inefforts be united, let our hearts be in
agreement, let our minds be united soagreement, let our minds be united so
that we all live in peace.” – Riga Vedathat we all live in peace.” – Riga Veda

45. What Can Be Done?What Can Be Done?
 Be informed, inform others, and be engagedBe informed, inform others, and be engaged
in the debatein the debate
 Communicate with other stakeholders in theCommunicate with other stakeholders in the
basin, talk to them – not talk at thembasin, talk to them – not talk at them
 Be organized, form alliances, raise the issueBe organized, form alliances, raise the issue
at national and if necessary international foraat national and if necessary international fora
 Analyze the issue scientificallyAnalyze the issue scientifically
 Demand transparency and accountabilityDemand transparency and accountability
 Find a solution that all can live withFind a solution that all can live with

46. To quoteTo quote
““It is a political gimmick. IfIt is a political gimmick. If
they drive the idea too hard,they drive the idea too hard,
it will split India”it will split India”
Sunil Kumar Munshi, TOI, 13/02/2003Sunil Kumar Munshi, TOI, 13/02/2003

47. To quoteTo quote
““ A country that cannot solveA country that cannot solve
Cauvery water disputes forCauvery water disputes for
decades should not talk aboutdecades should not talk about
linking rivers sharing water withoutlinking rivers sharing water without
even counseling the states.”even counseling the states.”
Sunil Kumar Munshi, TOI, 13/02/2003Sunil Kumar Munshi, TOI, 13/02/2003

48. To quoteTo quote
““Deccan plateau is nearlyDeccan plateau is nearly
2000 feet above the Gangetic2000 feet above the Gangetic
plain and will require immenseplain and will require immense
power to pump up water frompower to pump up water from
north to south.”north to south.”
Shri Dilip Banarjee, Former Joint Director, GSIShri Dilip Banarjee, Former Joint Director, GSI

49. To quoteTo quote
““It will disturb the natural flowIt will disturb the natural flow
and destroy the ecosystem,and destroy the ecosystem,
causing sedimentation andcausing sedimentation and
erosion.”erosion.”
Dr. Kalyan Rudra, River Scientist, EPW, 29/04/2006Dr. Kalyan Rudra, River Scientist, EPW, 29/04/2006

50. To quoteTo quote
““The inter linking of rivers mayThe inter linking of rivers may
bring water security that isbring water security that is
otherwise unimaginable. Stillotherwise unimaginable. Still
that judgment cannot bethat judgment cannot be
made in secrecy and haste.”made in secrecy and haste.”
Mr. Ashwin Mahesh (04/04/2003)Mr. Ashwin Mahesh (04/04/2003)

51. To quoteTo quote
““Linking of rivers isLinking of rivers is
foolishness. It is a symbol offoolishness. It is a symbol of
the haughtiness of humanthe haughtiness of human
being. They think they are thebeing. They think they are the
masters of everything.”masters of everything.”
Sunder Lal Bahuguna, The Hindu, 18/10/2005Sunder Lal Bahuguna, The Hindu, 18/10/2005

52. To quoteTo quote
““The river linking projectThe river linking project
seems to be based onseems to be based on
Pseudo Science, notPseudo Science, not
Science.”Science.”
Ms Vandana Shiva, EnvironmentalistMs Vandana Shiva, Environmentalist

53. To quoteTo quote
““River linking: A millennium folly.”River linking: A millennium folly.”
Medha Patkar, EnvironmentalistMedha Patkar, Environmentalist

54. To quoteTo quote
““Many canals will passMany canals will pass
through national parks andthrough national parks and
sanctuaries. How many willsanctuaries. How many will
be displaced? How will thebe displaced? How will the
flora, fauna and soils beflora, fauna and soils be
affected.”affected.”
Dr. R .K. Pachuri, TERIDr. R .K. Pachuri, TERI

55. To quoteTo quote
““When there is excess water inWhen there is excess water in
the Brahmaputra, there will bethe Brahmaputra, there will be
excess water in Ganga andexcess water in Ganga and
Mahanadi.”Mahanadi.”
Ms Sunita Narain, CSE, New DelhiMs Sunita Narain, CSE, New Delhi

56. Further information from:Further information from:
www.riverlinks.nic.inwww.riverlinks.nic.in
www.indiatogather.comwww.indiatogather.com
river link - a yahoogroupriver link - a yahoogroup
The Hindu survey of environmentThe Hindu survey of environment 20032003
Papers By Vandana Shiva, Medha PatkarPapers By Vandana Shiva, Medha Patkar

57. ThanksThanks
 OrganizersOrganizers
 Parents, friends and well wishersParents, friends and well wishers
 All the listenersAll the listeners
 My dear students from whom I alwaysMy dear students from whom I always
learn and also my teacherslearn and also my teachers