From: khaleq@brahms.udel.edu (Mohame Khalequzzaman)
Subject: Re: Ganga Water sharing (was Re: Victory in ....about India?)
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 23:02:00 GMT

[ ...deleted..]
>
>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.

Bangladesh's proposal does not advocate to take water from any Indian state.
They want to construct reservoir in the upstream areas in Nepal, which
will simply collect water during rainy season and will use  during dry
months.  The use of this water will also generate electricy.  That's
where the Nepalese interest should lie.  Now, I don't know exactly how many
such reservoirs will have to be built to effectively solve the problem.  Will
Nepal agree to spare so much space or can they afford to dislocate their
people to build those reservoirs?  What will be the ecologic consequences 
of such an undertaking?  These are the questions need to addressed before 
implementing such action.  India diesn't accept this idea anyway.
>
[deleted]
>
>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.

Yes this is true.  But also true the fact that the building of the Farakka
Barrage and diversion of water to "flush" Calcutta Port has not turned out to bea successful undetakig.  The problem of siltation is not solved, but has
detereorated.  Jyoti Basu has admitted that the Farakka hasn't solved any
problem that was originally intended for (most of the Indian scientists that
I have met admitted to this fact; the reference of Jyoti Basu's assertion is
an interview published in a Bangladeshi Newsweekly "Bichitra" last year).
Now the reason for such a failure lies in  the lack of scientific feasibity
of the project.  I don't think the Indian scientists didn't know that the
Farakka wouldn't solve the problem of siltation on riverbeds.  They, especially
the geosientists, must have known that.  Their geoscience, by the way, is very
good.  The reason the government not to go by any scientific reasoning is
obvious:  the project was never meant to solve any physical problem, it
was originally designed as a political tool to teach Pakistan (in the 60s)
a leasson.  Following the assasination of Mujib India has decided to use
this weapon against the Bangladeshi people.  By the way, no agreement was
even reached during Mujib's regime, but it was on the process.  Actually,
it was a big failure on Mujib's part not to be able to sign a long-term
treaty as he did with other matters. Hypothetically speaking, if Bangladesh
were a state of India, then under no circumstences India would plan to
build the Farakka Barrage;. because there is no scientific reason or
validity to such an unnecessary undertaking.

The siltation problem in the Hoogly River and in Calcutta Port is a
geologic phenomena known as Turbidity Maximum.  Let me explain it in simple
language. The turbidy maximum is the point along a coastal river where
tidal water meets fresh water inflow.  Since these two different water bodies
coming from an opposite direction meet at the turbidity maximum, the velocity of
water is virtually zero at this point.  As a result a very sluggish water
prevail at turbidy maximum, which allows any fine particles in the water column
to settle down at the turbidity maximum point.  This location of this point varies with many parameters such as the size of the river, amount of fresh water discharge, etc, but this point is located several miles upstream from the shoreline. So, by nature, the turbidity maximum point characterized by huge deposition
of silts and fine sand.  This point migrate in a landward direction over time
in response to rising sea level.  When sea level rises tidal influence 
propagates further upstream.  The turbidity maximum for the Hoogley
River is very close to the Calcutta Port, which is experiencing heavy
siltation.  As sea level keeps rising in the Bay of Bengal the turbidity
maximum, hence siltation problem, will migrate upstream, interfering navigability of the Hoogley River.  The same situation prevail in Mongla River in Bangladesh.  The Chalna Port had to be shifted further inland to solve this problem.
Don't the Indian geoscientist understand the cause of siltation and the feasibility of the Farakka Barrage as a measure to solve this problem?  I definitely think they do.  But if someone wants to sleep while he/she is awakened then can
we do anything?

I personally have brought up the question of Farakka at various International
Geoscience conferences, where numerous Indian geoscientists participated. As 
expected, never (I mean never) any Indian geoscientist questioned my views
that the Farakka doesn't have much scientific validity and it is more of
a political problem.  I invite any of my Indian geoscientist colleague to
defy my view or conclusion..


>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 

The idea of a link canal for the Brahmaputra and the Ganges is the same old
political trick.  We the Bangladeshis can't afford to be trapped in another
political ambush.  Not only our dependence on India will increase, if India
wants (which is not unlikely) can make our life extremely miserable by
controlling the water resources that originate in India and then flow into Bangladesh.  Only solution is to convince the progressive people in India who will
not find it fun to humiliate its neighbors.  Lets hope that they understand thatno one can live in complete peace if the neighbors are in trouble, especially
when the trouble is their own make. We can only be happy together.

>
>Samit
>
[deleted]

Khaleq
Newsgroups: soc.culture.bangladesh