The initial report -- that the Chinese were planning to raise their food output in the decades ahead -- was hardly stop-press material. But as details leaked out, policymakers in India and Bangladesh felt a shiver of apprehension: the Chinese proposed to divert the Brahmaputra river at source, in Tibet, even set off a peaceful nuclear explosion, to serve their purpose.
The nuclear device, they claim, is necessary to build a 200-km channel through a mountain range, linking the Brahmaputra to the arid zone.
These projections, made at the December 1995 meeting of the Chinese Academy of Engineering Physics in Beijing by two Chinese experts, were aimed at greening the vast Gobi desert and the arid tracts to its south. The only flaw: the region, which accounted for around 27 per cent of the country's land mass, processes only 7 per cent of its water resources.
Taking a left out of the Sinai and Negev areas of Israel, the experts argued that since the region thirsted for water, the only way to carry through the dream project was to divert the Brahmaputra, which originates from Tsangpo at 18,000 feet in the Tibetan Himalayas, from its southward course. They also talked about changing the course of other rivers and streams in Tibet.
A large enough diversion would help augment water resources of the region to 20 per cent, leading to an increase in foodgrains production: about 30 per cent in one decade. The use of a nuclear device was defended on the ground that conventional methods would not suffice.
The matter became public knowledge when the venerated Scientific American journal published a comprehensive account of the proposal. Official reaction was swift. In Assam, Promode Gogoi, minister for flood control, despatched a missive to the Centre, seeking prompt measures to stop the move. "The Brahmaputra is the very soul of Assam," he wrote. At a seminar in Dhaka, a leading hydrologist, Ain-ur Nishad, expressed his concern at China's 'unilateral decision'. Nishad counts on Indian support, if Bangladesh has to take up the matter with China.
The concern in Assam and Bangladesh is understandable. The Luit-as the river is locally called-figures prominently in the folklore and culture of Assam and the Northeast; it's been the theme of countless Bhupen Hazarika songs. The river is crucial to the economy of the entire region, where the concept of irrigation through groundwater sources has not really taken off.
What has added to the fears is that the governments can do little to the stop the Chinese juggernaut. After all, Tibet is rightfully Chinese territory. According to Jayant Madhab, former director, Asian Development Bank, under international law, no one can stop China.
"The Chinese government has equal rights to the use of the river."
Says Madhab: "the Brahmaputra is one of the largest river systems in the world covering China, India and Bangladesh. Of the 2,900 km stretch, half the river runs through China, including Tibet, and the other half through India and Bangladesh. It assumes different names in different places. In Assam, it is 918 km long, has 26 tributaries in the north bank and 15 in the south. The average annual water yield is 50 million hectare metres or about 20 per cent of India's total resources. The maximum discharge of the river at Pandu near Guwahati is 77,794 cubic metre per second."
By Madhab's estimates, the upstream Brahmaputra running through China contributes around 34 per cent of the discharge at Pandu. Therefore, some reduction in the flow might even act as a blessing in disguise for Assam -- it will be saved from recurring floods. In the past 42 years, Assam has been saved from the Brahmaputra's annual onslaught only four times.
In the absence of any fresh official announcement from China, no one knows the present status of "Operation Diversion". Madhab, like Gogoi, feels "the government of India cannot ignore its implications on the Brahmaputra river, on human lives and the environment of the North-east." In any case, no one knows just how much of water the Chinese will divert.
The Indian government is aware of the problem and is trying to gather more information of the Chinese agenda. Political observers do not find the Indian stand assuring, especially in view of the Chinese penchant for ignoring world opinion when imperatives relating to its 'national interests" are involved.
As for the Americans, they are concerned with the Chinese proposal for a nuclear blast. According to Hu Zuoxin, a participant in the December meet: "The Russians hailed this proposal as a wonderful idea." The US is also worried over China's insistence on the right to carry out 'peaceful' explosions despite its support to the CTBT.
The only snag with even peaceful nuclear blasts is that it generates huge amounts of radiation. For instance, there was a vast radiation fallout at the 1962 excavation experiment at Nevada, US. The Russians have carried out 124 such blasts, mostly intended to help oil exploration. A recent explosion at Seima in Kazakhstan released large amounts of radiation, exposing the local population to great risk. There is nothing to suggest that the Chinese blast, if it takes place, will be any 'cleaner'.
Tags