IN PERSPECTIVE

Going ahead with a disastrous project

By Sudhirendar Sharma 

A systematic programme to counter the opposition to river-linking project ignores the danger of water-logging

Lying low on the domestic front and shopping for support overseas seems to be the strategy of Suresh Prabhu, Chairperson of the Task Force on Interlinking of Rivers. From wooing the non-resident Indians in the United States to securing the interest of Texas Secretary of State Gwyn Shea to partner India in implementing its Rs 5.6 trillion plan, Prabhu has gone global with the mega project.

However, domestic and regional support is hard to come by. Reports indicate that Nepal and Bangladesh are worried over India’s stance in handling transboundary rivers. But Prabhu is unlikely to burn his fingers in the raging controversy till the monsoon waters recede and the rivers flow to their usual low. Till then, it will be for Dr Radha Singh, Director General of the National Water Development Agency (project implementing agency), to keep the domestic and regional opposition from flaring further.

The front desk of the Task Force has two faces. Farmers in southern India are a lot who are blind to the dangers that lie ahead of the proposed linking of the Himalayan rivers with the peninsular rivers. Like most large projects, the river-linking project too survives on publicity that hypes the benefits without substantiating them and belittles the negative concerns without enlisting them. No wonder, pro-river-linking farmers from Tamil Nadu flung an undated letter from Prabhu, in a recent meeting on river-linking in Thrissur, Kerala, to argue that “all is well with the mega initiative” and that all concerns, ecological, social and fiscal, are being suitably looked into.

Lack of transparency
In the letter Prabhu wrote, he said: “The Task Force will endeavour to take into account not only all the ecological concerns, but also the human and social concerns of the people who are likely to be displaced.” He also said: “Our effort will be to work in stages, to seek a consensus of all the stakeholders before taking a decision and to be transparent in our functioning.” However, if current goings-on are any indication neither have attempts been made to bring about a ‘consensus’ nor has the Task Force been ‘transparent’.

On being asked whether they had access to data and details on the proposed riverlinks, the same farmers who had flung the letter so vehemently were seen groping for an ‘answer’. It is this misinformed publicity campaign to woo the innocent by Prabhu and a more aggressive stance to silence the critics by Singh that there is ‘lack of faith’ in those running the most costly and the most destructive project in country's history thus far. If the project isn't destructive then why are facts not being made public?
Will the 700-odd people’s representatives who uphold the democratic principles in letter and spirit examine the violations closely and initiate collective steps to remedy the same? The challenge is to see that all river-linking details are in public domain and are subject to public scrutiny before the country's geography gets altered permanently.

The other side
Interestingly, Radha Singh upholds the Rajasthan Canal Project as an achievement and uses the same to argue the case in favour of bringing equity in water access across dry regions through river-linking. However, little does she realise that 246,000 hectare of arid land has been waterlogged and salinised due to the canal project in Rajasthan alone. Left to it, this land would have sustained a level of production within its ecological limits. However, irrigation has damaged this land beyond repair. The proposed 11,000 km long canal network to irrigate over 35 million hectares threatens a significantly large portion from waterlogging and salinity. 

Even if all other ecological and social concerns could be reasonably argued, there is nothing that can be done to stop the scourge of waterlogging. Irrigation has been known to hamper the process of natural drainage by accumulating water near the root zone of the plant. The subsequent deposition of salts due to capillary movement of water render the land saline. In the absence of a drainage policy the issue of irrigation induced salinity has been largely ignored, much to the plight of farmers. 

The fact that waterlogging emerges a few years later, depending on soil type and the sub-surface hydrology, after the canals get laid out is reason enough for project proponents to consider it as a ‘non-issue’. But it is a serious issue and will serve the Task Force better to inform the farmers about the risk of losing out productive land to waterlogging on account of river interlinking. Crucial to such debate is making public the feasibility studies and more importantly the ‘hidden impact’.

(Formerly with the World Bank, the writer is a water-expert attached to the Ecological Foundation in New Delhi)