From: kazi@hercules.cis.udel.edu (Zunaid Kazi)
Subject: Re: Ganga Water sharing (was Re: Victory in ....about India?)
Organization: University of Delaware, Newark
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 00:03:52 GMT

In article <1hasr6INNdo0@hsc.usc.edu> banerjee@hsc.usc.edu (Samit Banerjee) writes:
>In article <1992Dec23.150654.1@engvms.unl.edu> mermmzh@engvms.unl.edu 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 not? If that helps all three countries, what is the problem with
>>that?
>
>You obviously did not read my posting in it's entirety. The reasons why the 
>BD Government insists on having a reservoir in Nepal are not hard to find.
>It will make the Farrakka barrage in West Bengal redundant and control
>over the river water will pass from a supposedly "aggressive" neighbour
>to one that is more accomodating and friendly. The assumption here is
>that this perceived friendship will translate into additional water
>for BD, at India's expense, of course.
>
>Construction of such a reservoir might therfore help BD and Nepal but I
>doubt if you can say the same for India.

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? 

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]. 

There isn't enough water to satisfy both India and Bangladesh's needs,
and the need for augmentation is obvious. Both countries have put
forward counter-proposals for Ganges water augmentation each obviously
serving the proposing countries interests more so than the others.

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.
Any additional water emanating from the Nepalese reservoirs would
have to pass through India before reaching Bangladesh, since
India has constructed barrages across most of the major rivers that
traverse the West Bengal- Bangladesh border.  

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.

>Samit 

- Zunaid
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Zunaid Kazi | kazi@cis,udel.edu | 302-456-3493 (H) | 302-831-1949 (O)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.bangladesh