Discussions on renewing the Ganges Water Sharing Treaty should have started much earlier. It is unknown whether there has been any progress in this regard. These discussions should have been initiated at the government level several years ago. The proposal for the Padma Barrage will be suicidal if we fail to understand the nature of the water-sharing treaty at Farakka and cannot renew the agreement with a guaranteed minimum flow. I would not be surprised if the flow of the Padma drops below 10,000 cusecs during the dry season if a treaty is signed without a guarantee clause, because this has happened many times over the last 30 years. It is worth mentioning that before the construction of India’s Gajoldoba Barrage, 10,000 cusecs of water used to flow through the Teesta during the dry season, which now sometimes drops to a mere 500 cusecs. I have discussed elsewhere why the construction of the Padma Barrage would not be justified even if a treaty is signed. Similarly, announcing the construction of another Teesta Barrage without concluding the Teesta water-sharing treaty is an immature act.
Some are even heard saying that Bangladesh will no longer sit idle depending on upstream countries; from now on, the water crisis will be resolved internally with China’s assistance. It should be noted that 83% of the Teesta basin lies outside the country’s borders, and for the Ganges, this proportion is much higher. It is also claimed that the problem can be solved by storing water during the monsoon and releasing it gradually during the dry season. The proposed Padma Barrage (2.9 BCM) will not even have the capacity to hold the amount of water that flows through the Padma in just 12 hours during the monsoon (more than 3 BCM). How will those who cannot grasp this simple calculation solve the dry season water crisis? Those who make such claims are either ignorant about hydrology or are opportunists. Let the country’s interests and ecology go to hell; all they need are projects. Projects mean plundering; projects mean the mantra of development.
What is needed is the ratification of the UN Watercourses Convention (1997) and to persuade all basin countries, including India (yes, China, Nepal, and Bhutan as well), to accept the verdicts given by the international court under this law as the means of resolving water disputes for all transboundary rivers (yes, the Brahmaputra too). Since China has extended a hand of friendship, they too should refrain from building dams upstream. Not just the dams built by India, but all structures obstructing the natural flow of rivers (yes, even the Kaptai Dam inside Bangladesh, the coastal polders, and the Teesta Barrage at Dalia) should be removed. Bangladesh will cease to exist if the natural flow of rivers is not preserved. A river’s job is not just to carry water; it has built the landmass called Bangladesh by carrying sediment. Can our engineers and bureaucrats comprehend this truth? Judging by the circumstances, it seems not. May good sense prevail. Let equity be established regarding water flow in all transboundary rivers.
Dr. Md. Khalequzzaman
Professor, Geology and Environmental Science
Commonwealth University of Pennsylvania, USA
Global Coordinator, Bangladesh Environment Network (BEN)
