Farakka, Floods And River Sharing: Why Bihar Wants A New Ganga Water Deal

With the India-Bangladesh Ganga Water Sharing Treaty set to expire on December 12, Bihar is pushing for its concerns to be considered before any new arrangement is negotiated.

JD(U) Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Kumar Jha has argued that the existing treaty has not adequately accounted for Bihar’s interests and should not simply be renewed in its present form. Jha wants a future framework to consider Bihar’s requirements for irrigation, agriculture, drinking water and industry.

The issue gained an immediate flood-management dimension on Monday, when the Bihar government urged West Bengal to open all gates of the Farakka Barrage as Ganga water levels rose.

The question now is whether the next India-Bangladesh water arrangement can address Bangladesh’s dry-season requirements while also taking greater account of concerns within India’s Ganga basin.

What Is The Ganga Water Sharing Treaty?

The agreement was signed in New Delhi on December 12, 1996, and governs the sharing of Ganga waters at Farakka during the lean season, from January 1 to May 31.

The treaty establishes a flow-based formula under which available water at Farakka is divided between India and Bangladesh. Flows are measured and reviewed during successive 10-day periods, while a Joint Committee monitors implementation.

The treaty has a 30-year validity period and governs seasonal rather than year-round water sharing. Its focus is the distribution of available Ganga flows during the lean season, when water availability is most sensitive.

Why Does It Expire In 2026?

The treaty’s 30-year term ends on December 12. India and Bangladesh must now decide whether to extend the existing framework, replace it or negotiate changes before the expiry date.

India’s Parliamentary Standing Committee on External Affairs has called for discussions to begin early so that there is no gap in the framework after 2026. It has also recommended that any successor arrangement use updated hydrological data and take climate change into account.

That makes the expiry a potential opening to revisit a framework negotiated three decades ago under different environmental and demographic conditions.

Why Is Bihar Asking For A Rewrite?

Bihar was not a signatory to the 1996 treaty. The agreement is between India and Bangladesh, so Bihar’s concerns have to be represented through New Delhi’s negotiating position.

Jha has argued that the existing treaty has not adequately accounted for Bihar’s interests and should not simply be renewed for another term.

In comments to PTI, carried by ThePrint, he said the future arrangement should consider Bihar’s needs for industry, irrigation, agriculture and drinking water, along with the state’s projected population in 2050. He also criticised what he described as the failure to assess the treaty’s impact on Bihar over the past 30 years.

The Parliamentary Standing Committee on External Affairs has separately recommended consultation with affected states, specifically including Bihar and West Bengal, as part of discussions over the treaty’s future.

That gives state-level concerns an institutional route into what remains a central-government-led bilateral negotiation.

How Does Farakka Affect Bihar?

The Farakka Barrage is in West Bengal, not Bihar. It was built in 1975 to divert part of the Ganga towards the Bhagirathi-Hooghly system and support flows towards Kolkata.

Its operation, however, has consequences across the wider Ganga basin.

Bihar has long faced problems involving flooding, river erosion, sedimentation and water management. The relationship between those problems and the Farakka Barrage is more complicated than the political debate sometimes suggests.

An official parliamentary response from the Ministry of Jal Shakti said there was no conclusive evidence that Ganga water sharing with Bangladesh had altered the morphology of the river in West Bengal. It attributed erosion and sedimentation to multiple factors, including floods, sediment loads, rainfall, hydrological conditions and climate-related changes.

Bihar’s concerns about flooding and river management are therefore distinct from the question of how much of those problems can be directly attributed to the treaty or the barrage.

The immediate situation illustrates the sensitivity of the issue. On Monday, Bihar asked West Bengal to open all Farakka Barrage gates as Ganga levels rose and flooding worsened.

What Does Bangladesh Get Under The Treaty?

Bangladesh receives a share of the Ganga’s available flow at Farakka during the lean season according to the treaty’s formula.

The amount changes depending on the flow recorded at Farakka. At lower levels, the treaty provides for an equal division of the available water, while the formula changes as the flow increases.

The agreement also contains specific arrangements for the March-May period and guarantees certain deliveries during successive 10-day periods, subject to the conditions laid out in the treaty.

Bangladesh does not receive a fixed year-round volume under the agreement. It governs the division of available dry-season flows.

Does Bihar Have A Separate Water Allocation?

Bihar has no separate allocation under the treaty.

Its argument is that India’s negotiating position should account for the water requirements of states within the Ganga basin.

The Parliamentary Standing Committee’s recommendation to consult Bihar and West Bengal could give those states a more direct role in shaping India’s position before negotiations with Bangladesh.

What Could A New Treaty Look Like?

India has not publicly announced a final negotiating position for a successor agreement.

However, the Standing Committee has recommended that any successor arrangement take account of updated hydrological data, climate-change projections and principles of equitable and sustainable water use.

It has also called for consultation with Bihar and West Bengal and for early discussions with Bangladesh to ensure continuity after the existing treaty expires.

The Indian Council of World Affairs has similarly argued that the end of the 1996 agreement provides an opportunity to reconsider the framework in light of changing hydrological and climatic conditions. That is expert analysis rather than a formal government negotiating position.

Is There Already A Mechanism To Manage The Treaty?

The 1996 agreement established a Joint Committee responsible for monitoring flows and implementation. India’s Department of Water Resources records meetings of the committee and reviews of water-sharing arrangements at Farakka.

Bangladesh’s Joint Rivers Commission provides the corresponding institutional mechanism on the Bangladeshi side.

India and Bangladesh therefore already have an established channel for exchanging technical information, checking flow measurements and discussing implementation.

Can India And Bangladesh Renegotiate Before December?

There is no need to wait for the current treaty to expire before discussions over its successor begin. The Parliamentary Standing Committee has urged an early start to avoid a gap in the water-sharing framework.

The Joint Committee also provides an existing channel for technical discussions while the two governments work through the larger political questions.

Bangladesh has an established interest in reliable dry-season flows, while Bihar wants greater recognition of its irrigation, drinking-water and flood-management concerns. West Bengal has its own river-management interests, while changing hydrology and climate variability have altered the conditions under which the original treaty was negotiated.

What Happens Next?

The immediate debate is no longer simply whether the 1996 treaty should be renewed. It is what should replace it and whose interests should shape the negotiations.

The Standing Committee has called for early talks, updated hydrological data and consultation with Bihar and West Bengal. Bihar is pressing for its irrigation, drinking-water and flood-management needs to be considered, while Bangladesh has an established interest in reliable dry-season flows.

Any successor framework will have to balance those competing demands while accounting for a Ganga basin that has changed substantially since 1996.