In
spite of our government's repeated failure and dishonesty when it has
come to major water and power projects in India, I actually considered
accepting Sam
Kannappan's assurance that the current leadership of President
Abdul Kalam and Suresh Prabhu [till recently, chairman of the Task
Force on Interlinking of Rivers]
would make things vastly different. But then I dug a little into the
chronology of announcements and statements made in 2003 by the task
force and other prominent proponents of interlinking of rivers. How
utterly evident it became that it was the same story of dishonesty and
broken promises all over again!
Consensus among states?
Prabhu said at the national
conference on river linking organised by the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry
held in New Delhi on March 5, 2003, 'The chief ministers of several
states have given green signal for the project.' On May 6, he declared
that there was 'no opposition to the national river linking project
from any quarters.'
But the fact is that so
far, Kerala, Bihar, West Bengal, Assam, Punjab, Chhattisgarh, and Goa
have opposed
the river-linking proposition. Gujarat, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh,
Orissa, and Maharashtra have only given a conditional agreement: that
is, they have agreed to links where they would receive water but are
opposed to those links where they would donate the water! Only Haryana
and Tamil Nadu have unconditionally supported the proposal, but they
will be only receiving water from outside.
On
October 31, 2003, Tamil Nadu was the only state that responded to the
apex court agreeing to the court obiter dictum to
link Indian rivers. The court ruled that in the absence of affidavits
from other states, 'the presumption clearly is that they do not oppose
the prayer made in this writ petition and it must be regarded that
there is a consensus amongst all of them that there should be
inter-linking of rivers in India.' But the very order that presumed an
all-India consensus went on to say that the task force would 'go into
the modalities for bringing consensus among the states.'
Environmental
Impact Assessment
On
May 6, 2003, Suresh Prabhu announced through the newspapers,
'River-linking project to start by 2004.' In an interview to the Hindustan
Times
on August 9, 2003, he said, 'Each of these projects will have an
environmental impact study. If any or all of these projects are found
to be adversely affecting the environment, we will not go ahead with
it.'
The
same month, the following news item appeared in some newspapers:
'Prabhu sought to allay the fears of the critics by saying that the
river link scheme was only a proposal at this stage, not a project. He
also promised to form a standing committee of non-governmental
organisations whose views would be taken into account before going
ahead.'
Three
months after officially declaring that the project was going to be
launched, our government was promising us that it was 'still a
proposal, not a project.'
Feasibility
Studies
The task force has announced that pre-feasibility studies have been completed for all 30 links and feasibility studies for eight links. In spite of repeated requests from the civil society, which includes academics and scientists in this case, the task force has not published a single report for scrutiny. When asked in an interview with the Hindustan Times on June 30 on why the NWDA [National Water Development Agency] project reports are available to the public, Prabhu replied, 'The reports are highly technical and will not be of interest to the public at large.'
How much louder and
clearer should the 'public at large' make the point that they are indeed
of interest to them?
Project Cost
With regard to the
initial projected cost of Rs 5.6 lakh crores [Rs 560,000 crores or
Rs 5,600 billion],
Prabhu said at the FICCI conference on March 5, 'We are in the process
of doing a fresh cost assessment and expect the final amount to be
lower.' On September 9, 2003, in the Action Plan-II submitted to the
government the task force said that the cost of inter-linking rivers
would be much higher than the estimated Rs 5.6 lakh crores. It
said the initial estimate of Rs 5.6 lakh crores by the NWDA under
the
water resources ministry did not envisage yearly inflation, inclusion
of state governments in their programmes of implementation, and costs
relating to ecology, environment, wildlife, and the resettlement and
rehabilitation of displaced people.
If so many factors were not
taken into consideration while estimating costs, what then did the task
force factor in? How was the initial estimate arrived at?
The Par-Tapi-Narmada-Link
page of the task force web
site www.riverlinks.nic.in
claims: 'Provisions have been made to resettle the affected persons by
providing them with attractive packages. Provision has also been made
for compensatory afforestation.' How could the Indian government have
made these provisions even before estimating the costs or even setting
up committees for them?
Displacement
While
speaking at the national conference organised by FICCI on March 5,
2003, Suresh Prabhu said, 'Some people are spreading baseless
estimates. Our estimate says only 450,000 people will be displaced.'
The Task Force web site states that for just the 16 peninsular
links, 498,241 would be displaced.
What about those
displaced by the remaining 14 Himalayan links?
Project timelines
On March 26, 2003, Minister Arjun
Charan Sethi at the 19th annual general meeting of NWDA Society in
Delhi said, 'We will complete feasibility studies of all links by 2005,
detailed project reports by 2006, and implementations of the projects
by 2016.' On March 28, 2003, at a Confederation of Indian Industry
conference, Prabhu said, 'Though the Supreme Court has laid down a
timeframe of 12 to 14 years (by 2016) for implementing the project, we
intend to commence it once the ongoing feasibility study gets
completed.' On May 6, 2003, Prabhu announced, 'The feasibility report
is nearing completion.' The prime minister announced on August 15,
2003, in his Independence Day address that work would begin this year.
When asked by the Hindustan
Times
how the completion date could have been assigned if the studies were
incomplete, Prabhu replied, 'We have not given the date. It has been
given to us. We will see how the project goes. Each potential link has
an initial study, followed by field surveys, feasibility reports and
then detailed project reports before the project is finally selected.'
On November 11, the New Indian Express reported
that the 'court had asked the government to link the rivers by the year
2012 pursuant to which the government constituted the task force which
after working out the time schedule had informed the court that it was
possible to get major rivers interlinked by the year 2016.'
What
happened to the timeline that was announced just 10 months ago? Did the
task force give the completion date to the Supreme Court, or was it the
other way around? How can the project be announced when the feasibility
studies are not completed yet?
Discussions
with neighbours
When
FICCI suggested including diplomats from Bangladesh, Nepal and
Pakistan, as well as Indian state level political leaders at the
conference organised by them on March 5, 2003, in New Delhi, the
government dismissed it saying 'this can be done later.' At the
conference, Prabhu said, 'We are in regular discussion with Nepal,
Bhutan, and Bangladesh. External Affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha is
taking up the issues with his counterparts in these countries. It's a
project from which they will gain in a major way. It's like a healthy
marriage: neither the husband nor the wife will claim that only one of
them have benefited from the relationship.'
After four months, on July
29, 2003, The
Kathmandu Post
carried a news item which read, 'Despite claims from Indian officials
that Nepal has already been consulted about its huge river-linking
project, senior Nepali officials deny any official contact from the
Indian government.'
Bangladesh
Water Resources Minister Hafizuddin Ahmed said, 'India has not
officially informed Bangladesh of the plan.' An official in the
ministry of foreign affairs said, 'There's been no question of a
consultation. Such a project can only have disastrous consequences for
us.'
Under
the India-Bangladesh Treaty of December 1996 on the sharing of Ganga
waters, India had undertaken to protect the flows at Farakka, which is
the sharing point. With India flouting the treaty, and both Nepal and
Bangladesh being vehemently opposed to the project, one wonders what
Prabhu's idea of a 'healthy marriage' is!
Bangladesh-India-China
When the citizens of Bangladesh came together to say in one loud voice that they were unhappy, the Indian government called it an 'immature response.' A few months later, when the Chinese government announced a similar plan to divert the waters of the Brahmaputra before reaching India, the Indian government opposed the move saying, 'This is not fair.'
How does one rule apply
to Bangladesh and another to India? And we haven't even signed a treaty
with China!
Civil society
involvement
Apart
from the Standing Committee of NGOs that was promised to `be formed by
the Task Force, Prabhu announced at the conference 'Reforms for
Competitiveness: The Next Generation' organised by the Confederation of
Indian Industry, Karnataka branch, on March 28, 2003, that the 'task
force will also distribute booklets and pamphlets in regional languages
for feedback from various sections of people involving panchayats
[local councils], trade unions, and NGOs.' Nothing has happened so far.
Part-time experts
The water resources
ministry, through its web site says, 'In
addition to the above members of the Task Force, part-time members will
also be nominated as under: a member from water-deficit states, a
person from water-surplus states, an economist, a sociologist; and a
legal/world wildlife expert.'
Would
'part-time' sociologist and wildlife expert be adequate for a national
project of this nature, which is expected to displace more than a
million people and submerge thousands of hectares forests (some reserve
forests)?
Radha Singh, director general of the National Water Development Agency, in her article that appeared on May 10, 2003, in the Economic and Political Weekly, wrote, 'It is presumptuous to assume that planners would roll through a programme without adherence to the established procedures of technical, financial, environmental and social clearances.'
But then, Ms Singh and
Mr Prabhu have the right to remain silent.
