The River Linkages Payoff

The clandestine and insidious manner in which a gargantuan project of interlinking of rivers has suddenlybecome the most important project on the national agenda is a great tribute to the ability of this governmentto use the President, the judiciary and the media to legitimise a project which was unthinkable a year earlierand will unquestionably be ruinous for the nation.

Consider the facts:

The precursors to the project for interlinking the rivers were the Ganga Cauvery link proposal mooted byK.L. Rao and the Garland Canal idea put forward by Captain Dinshaw Dastur in the Sixties. They were bothexamined and found impractical, the former on the grounds of the very large financial and energy costsinvolved, and the latter because it was technically unsound. 

Moreover, since then, with the growth of the understanding of environmental and ecological connections, ithas been realized that large dams and irrigation projects cause enormous disturbances to the environment andecology. These include submergence of forests and agricultural lands, loss of biodiversity, changes in rivermorphology and water quality, disruption of habitats of wildlife, waterlogging and salinity, reduction indownstream flows, reduction of freshwater inflows into the sea and the consequent impacts on aquatic life,etc.

The various movements and agitations on behalf of the oustees of such projects have also focused attentionon the enormous injustice that has been done to them, rendering them homeless, landless and rootless by theirinvoluntary displacement. Simultaneously, there is also been a realisation that rainwater harvesting or Microwatershed development are far quicker and more economical ways of harnessing water.

Recently, the World Bank along with several other international agencies formed a World Commission on damsto do a retrospective study of the overall impact of large dams and irrigation projects around the world. Thiscommission had members from the dam construction industry as well as from environmental and social activistorganisations which had been opposing large dams. The commission gave a unanimous report, mainly pointing outthat the costs of large dams had been largely underestimated and the benefits exaggerated. The environmentaland social impacts of such projects had largely been left out in the cost benefit calculations. 

The India Country Study which had been conducted by some of the most eminent experts in the countryconcluded: 

"It is evident that past (large dam) projects, in general, have not been comprehensively assessed interms of their environmental, social and economic viability and optimality… Also, the distribution of mostof the costs and benefits of large dams seems to accentuate socio-economic inequities."

Despite all this, a conspiracy appears to have been hatched at the top echelons of the government tosomehow bring this massive river linking project on the national agenda. On Independence Day last year, aparagraph was added in the President's speech to the effect that the problems of floods and drought canperhaps be solved by interlinking the rivers. 

This paragraph was enough for a lawyer appointed by the Supreme Court as amicus curiae (to assist thecourt) in the Yamuna pollution case to file a short application praying that the court should direct thegovernment to take up this project. As if on cue, the bench headed by the then Chief Justice B.N.Kripal issuednotices to all the States and the Centre. 

On the next day of hearing, which was the day before the retirement of the then Chief Justice, an order waspassed which is now effectively being treated by the government as a direction by the court to undertake thisproject and complete it within the shortest possible time. 

The order noted that only the Union of India and the State of Tamil Nadu had filed responses to the noticeissued by the court. It stated that the Union of India pointed out that the project would cost Rs 5,60,000crores, would take 43 years, and would need the consent of the States. The State of Tamil Nadu had filed aninnocuous affidavit, virtually saying nothing. The court noted that no other State had filed any affidavit andtherefore it could be assumed that none had any objection to the implementation of this project! 

After orally noting that funds cannot be any constraint for the government for a project in nationalinterest, the court observed in its order that the project should be completed within 10 years! It also wenton to advise the government that in case consent was not forthcoming from the States, the government shouldconsider passing a legislation to obviate consent of the States for this project.

All this for a project which would require funds equal to the total irrigation budget of the country forthe next 44 years, if the Ninth Plan expenditure is any guide. And all this without hearing any interestedparty, not even the States, without any discussion or debate whatsoever, without completing even feasibilitystudies, leave aside the question of social, environmental, economic or optimality assessments! 

Such is the casual nonchalance with which this country is being pushed to a course which would haveunparalleled and unprecedented, financial, social and environmental consequences.

Such an order from the court was all that the government needed to immediately go on a public relationsoffensive to bring this project on the national agenda, characterising it as a court approved or courtdirected project. It immediately formed a task force, consisting of mainly civil engineers who had beeninvolved in dam construction or officials who had been connected with the water resources Ministry, to draw updetailed plans for the implementation of this project. 

Such is the speed with which the task force has been proceeding with this project, that it has submitted areport to the court recently, saying that it will, during this year itself, begin work on one or two links atleast. All this, without even a feasibility study, what to say of a detailed project report. The effort seemsto be to somehow make this a fait accompli before there can even be a serious debate about the pros and consof such a massive undertaking, an undertaking more than 10 times the size of any project ever undertaken inthis country.

It is being assumed that all the planning process necessary for such projects including environmentalclearance etc will be short-circuited, as all in authority will be told that this is a court directed projectand is topmost on the national agenda. The project is being projected as the lifeline of India in much thesame manner as the Sardar Sarovar project has been projected as the lifeline of Gujarat. 

It is this ability of the governments of the day to sell illusions and outright lies by using the media,(see how the US government has sold the war on terror there) which has now emerged as one of the most seriousthreats to democracy in our times.

It does not take much technical knowledge to understand why the interlinking of rivers is an absurd ideaand a ruinous project. Before one can think of bringing water from long distances, one must first store atleast the water which is falling over one's head. 

It has been found that the cost of rainwater harvesting is on an average 1/5 of the cost of harnessing thesame water by bringing it over large distances after storing it in large dams. Therefore it makes no sense tothink about bringing water from far, unless one is being able to save and utilise the rainwater falling in thearea. 

Moreover, such a project would involve enormous social and environmental upheaval and enormous conflictbetween States. If the Cauvery dispute which is only between 3 states on the sharing of water of one river isany indication, imagine what will happen when water from several rivers is taken to other rivers acrossseveral states. It will also be an administrative nightmare.

Yet, despite such fundamental considerations, the central government wants to push this project, whichwould require the total irrigation budget of the country for more than 44 years, without any public debate andwithout any planning. And this at a time when we are not able to get Rs 1,00,000 Crores to complete ourincomplete and long overdue irrigation projects. Nor are we able to maintain and optimally use existingirrigation infrastructure or use rainwater where it falls.

It is not difficult to understand the motivations of those who control the government. If 5,60,000 croresis to be spent through a centralized pipeline as will be the case in this project, the potential for hugekickbacks are enormous. 10% of this is 56,000 Crores. Even if you spread it over 20 years it means 2,800crores a year! Not small pickings even from today’s standards.

Why else should there be such an unseemly hurry to undertake such a massive project? Why else would thenormal planning process be short circuited? Why else would the task force say that it will begin work on oneor two links this year without knowing which link and without doing even a feasibility study of the links thatit wants to take up.

If only Rs.10 lakhs on an average were given to each of the less than 1 million villages in the country forrainwater harvesting on the lines pioneered by the Tarun Bharat Sangh in Rajasthan, much of the agriculturalland in the country could be irrigated. This would mean a total outlay of less than 1,00,000 Crores for thecountry (less than 20% of the cost of this project). Such a project could be implemented in 2 years if thefunds and technical knowledge were made available to each village.

But people who rule this country know that they could hardly take 10% from the funds allocated to eachvillage without being caught. It is only when the funds go through a central pipeline through a few largecontractors that such large kickbacks can reasonably be taken. That is why this preference for such largecentralized projects.

If the Rs 14,000 Crores that have already been spent on the Sardar Sarovar Project had been spent onrainwater harvesting in Gujarat, every single village of Gujarat would have been drought-proofed long ago. Buteven after 24 years since the project started, we are nowhere near the completion of the project, which islikely to take at least another 25 years and will cost another at least Rs 30,000 Crores.

During all this time, there has been and will be no funds left for any other minor or micro irrigationprojects or for maintenance and repair of existing infrastructure in the State since the Sardar Sarovar hasand will continue to swallow the entire irrigation budget of the State and more.

Jawaharlal Nehru is credited with having called large dams, "temples of modern India". But no textbookrecalls what he said soon thereafter. He said:

"For some time past, however, I have been beginning to think that we are suffering from what we may call,"disease of gigantism". We want to show that we can build big dams and do big things. This is a dangerousoutlook developing in India…. the idea of having big undertakings and doing big tasks for the sake ofshowing that we can do big things is not a good outlook at all…We have to realise that we can also meet ourproblems much more rapidly and efficiently by taking up a large number of small schemes, especially when thetime involved in a small scheme is much less and the results obtained are rapid. Further, in those smallschemes you can get a good deal of what is called public co-operation, and therefore, there is that socialvalue in associating people with such small schemes."

Now, however, we have traveled long and far since the time of Nehru. The manner in which the government ispushing the project for interlinking the rivers leaves little doubt that the lure of gigantism today is theprospect of large and easy kickbacks.

Unfortunately, these are the base considerations on which the future of the country and its people is beingmortgaged.

Prashant Bhushan is a public interest lawyer in the Supreme Court.