Making A Difference

Rain To The Rescue

Every drop helps as a water shortfall exposes flaws in the treaty

Advertisement

Rain To The Rescue
info_icon

WEATHER experts may be worried and cultivators may bemoan the fate of their onion and potato crop. But for India and Bangladesh, the unseasonal April rain was a gift of the gods, as it rescued the four-month-old Indo-Bangla Ganga water-sharing agreement. Only, the reprieve was temporary.

The 30-year treaty, which came into effect on January 1, was hailed as an instrument which would dispel misgivings about Indian designs to "punish" Bangladesh and also put relations between the two countries on a solid footing. Under the treaty, both countries would get 35,000 cusecs for three alternate 10 day-periods between March and April. But while India did take the 35,000 cusecs, a water resources expert in Dhaka claimed that Bangladesh received only between 10,000 and 25,000 cusecs. The immediate cause of the discrepancy is attributed to the shortfall of water at the Farakka Barrage. Indian officials claim the flow dropped below 50,000 cusecs due to inadequate rainfall in north India coupled with the slow glacial melting in the Himalayas—something which has never happened in the last 40 years. The average record down the years shows that the water flow at Farakka is around 64,700 cusecs in the last 10 days of March and 63,180 cusecs in the first 10 days of April.

Advertisement

But in the last week of March this year, the Ganga flow at Farakka was only 46,000 cusecs, an all-time low. No wonder there were angry mutterings on both sides of the border. "Give us at least our 35,000 cusecs as laid down in the agreement," insisted Bangladeshi officials. "Impossible," retorted their Indian counterparts, pointing out that the reduced flow had created an emergency situation which called for desperate remedies—that the water be shared 50:50. The only problem: there is just too little to satisfy either side. Bangladesh needs its 35,000 cusecs as an absolute minimum in order to prevent the desertification of large tracts of its territory, while the port of Calcutta needs at least 40,000 cusecs to remain in business. When the total flow barely exceeds 40,000 cusecs, such arrangements lose all meaning.

Advertisement

While there is no dispute about the shortfall, Dhaka discounts the Indian claim about the quantum of water it is releasing for Bangladesh from Farakka. "Bangladesh is not receiving its due," says Ainun Nishat, professor of Water Resources at the Engineering University, Dhaka, who played a key role in drafting the treaty. A number of factors could be responsible, he says. One, there's definitely some discrepancy between the Indian claim and the actual amount of water being released by India; two, withdrawal of water upstream between Farakka in India and Hardinge Bridge point in Bangladesh may be reducing the flow; three, there could be seepage of water between the two points where the flow is measured. "It's simply not true that we're violating the accord," insists Dev Mukherjee, Indian High Commissioner to Bangladesh. It's an unusual phenomenon, he says, and that's why there is a provision in the treaty which calls for urgent consultations between the two countries should such a situation arise.

The two sides consisting of experts did sit for consultations in Dhaka recently to sort out the crisis. What emerged is not known, but it is clear that differences remain, as they were not even able to issue a joint statement after the meeting. According to a source, who was privy to the discussions, the Indian team said it would convey Bangladesh's concern to Delhi.

The inconclusive outcome has raised serious questions about the effectiveness of the treaty. Says Prof Moniruzzeman Miah, former vice-chancellor of Dhaka University and a leading water resources expert: "The treaty is flawed because there is no minimum guarantee clause anywhere. Though there is a guarantee for 35,000 cusecs for three alternate 10-day periods, article 2 suggests that if the flow drops below 50,000 cusecs, there will be consultations between the two governments to decide how to share the waters—this is a built-in contradiction. To resolve it, there is no provision for a third-party mediation. It may so happen Bangladesh will always be the loser." If the water treaty fails, Bangladesh

Advertisement

Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, already fighting charges of a sellout to India, will be the worst sufferer. The opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party has already launched a campaign, attacking the treaty. Against this backdrop, the rains brought a smile on the faces of worried officials. But the prevailing mood is sombre, as they acknowledge the freak rain for what it is: a small mercy.

Tags

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement