From: banerjee@hsc.usc.edu (Samit Banerjee)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.bangladesh,soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: Ganga Water sharing (was Re: Victory in ....about India?)
Date: 24 Dec 1992 16:36:29 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: hsc.usc.edu

In article <1992Dec24.000352.20911@udel.edu> kazi@hercules.cis.udel.edu (Zunaid Kazi) writes:
>>>> Brahmaputra (which flows through areas having a much lower density of 
>>>> population) with tha Ganga and not by constructing a reservoir in Nepal

>Why? If additional water is available then couldn't that be used to
>satisfy the water needs of both countries [ie India and Bangladesh]?
>Why should the additional water be at India's expense? 

The areas of Bihar and UP bordering Nepal have high densities of population 
and taking away water from there to storage areas will hurt the people in 
these states.

>Currently as the situation now stands, the absence of a water sharing
>agreement has resulted in excessive withdrawal by India during the
>dry season and excessive discharge during the monsoons. The net
>result has been increasing desertification in the Northern Districts
>of Bangladesh. [One can even walk across the Ganga/Padma during the
>dry season at Rajshahi]. 

You should see the Ganga as it flows through Bengal. The once flourishing
river transport is virtually over since even fishing trawlers have 
difficulties making it through the Calcutta port and up the river due
to excessive silt deposits. Due to reduced amounts of water, even the once
famous hilsa are coming up the river to spawn in much smaller
amounts.

>The Bangladesh proposal deals with building dams and reservoirs
>in Nepal which can store excess water during the rainy season and
>then can be discharged during the dry seasons. Nepal's advantage
>would be associated power generation and improved irrigation. 
>Both India and Bangladesh should have ample water during the
>contention period. India's objection stems from the fact that
>the source of the water would be in a third country. Then there
>is of course the ecological problem that needs to be identified.

BD's probable reasons in wanting to bring Nepal into the scenario are
supposed fears over a bellicose Indian attitude and a refusal to be bullied
by a bigger neighbour. It is felt that the presence of a third, largely 
impartial country will prevent India from exerting undue pressure on BD 
and should it be necessary, Nepal could probably do a little arm twisting
of it's own, especially since it would control a large part of the water.

The problem as far as India goes is that bulk of the water would be taken away
when the Ganga flows through UP and Bihar and control of that water
would lie with a third country. That is an infringement of Indian sovereignty
and quite unacceptable.

>The Indian proposal deals with building a link canal that will
>feed off the Jamuna/Brahmaputra to augment the Ganges at a point
>just before Farakka. The Bangladesh objections are obvious. This
>proposal would only shift the water scarcity problem from one
>river system to another, and the building of the link canal
>would not only be prohibitively expensive, but would also result
>in significant loss of cultivable land.


A small correction. The Jamuna merges with the Ganga in Allahabad and does not
flow east thereafter. 

The Brahmaputra flows through largely uninhabitated land in Arunachal
Pradesh and Upper Assam. The density of population increases dramatically
once it reaches the lower Assam valley also called the Barak Valley. 
However, the bulk of the crop grown here is tea which unlike rice does
not need large amounts of water. Also, the population densities are much
lower than that found on the Indo-Gangetic basin. Therefore, the Ganga
Brahmaputra link canal would not shift the water scarcity but rather mitigate
it. The BD objections stem from the fact that the Brahmaputra waters that 
would have flowed into that country unused from the Indian side, would now be
passing into Indian control.  Understandable and yet so easily overcome.

As for expenses, the Indira Gandhi Canal in Rajasthan and the Sutlej
Yamuna Link Canal in  Punjab has shown that the technology is there to 
construct such a canal, relatively easily, if only the two sides could  
settle their differences and come to an agreement.

Samit


-- 
Samit Banerjee,			    |  
University of Southern California   |  A man who smiles when things go wrong,
Internet: banerjee@scf.usc.edu      |  has found somebody to blame it on.
Bellnet : (213) 342-1401            |  
Newsgroups: soc.culture.bangladesh