1. INTERLINKING OF INDIAN RIVERS
THE NATIONAL RIVER GRID
AMBAREESH AVADHUT KSHIRSAGAR
&
Dr. A. G. UGARKAR

2. HOW IT ALL BEGAN
In 1972, Dr K L Rao put forth an idea to link the sacred river Ganga – a perennially flowing river fed by both water and the Himalayas – with the river Cauvery – an important river flowing through the south that is chiefly monsoon fed.
The idea was that the excess waters of the Ganga which floods every year during monsoons would be redirected to the Cauvery through a series of canals.
This would solve the problem of wet draughts in the north and those of dry periods and water scarcity in the south.

6. Advantages
If the project had come into existence, it would have solved many water related queries including the problem of irrigation.
Certain projects which were similar in concept to the idea of interlinking such as the Bhakra – Nangal project and the Sardar Sarovar project have proven to be beneficial in the areas that they serve.

7. Disadvantages
No feasibility studies were conducted at the time when the government decided to go forth with this project in not even a committee was set up to analyse the various aspects.
When a committee was set up after much criticism, it consisted only of civil engineers who were dreaming up huge profit margins.
Dams and canals were to cover a land of around 300,000 hectares of which 120,000 would be forests and other types of vegetation.
Dams cause water stagnation which would lead to the siltation of the lands surrounding them leading to soil infertility.
Relocation of displaced people would put enormous stresses on the socio ecological condition.
It was revealed that the actual cost of the project was to be far more than the estimated Rs 560,000 Cr.
Sharing the waters of the Ganga with another river through canals violated the treaty between India and Bangladesh through which the river flows too.

8. Reactions to the project
Mr PRV Raja in his article in The Hindu dated Sept 23rd 2003 stated that a group of scientists from India, Nepal and The Great Britain conducted a survey in the Himalayas, which concluded that due to the rapid rate at which the glaciers were melting, there wouldn’t be much snow left within a span of 25 years to feed the rivers, and soon enough all the Himalayan rivers including the Ganga would become monsoon fed. This rendered the link between the Ganga and the Cauvery pointless.
Ms Medha Patkar of the Narmada Bachao Andolan said that to cater to the need of the water deficit areas which were widely dispersed all over the country, the need was to come up with a solution for each area individually and not put the fate of all these areas in the flanks of one centralised mammoth project, which also didn’t make any sense financially.

9. Mr Rajinder Singh of the Jal Biradari project who successfully revived the Aravari river in Alwar said that the success indicated that planning and management that was centred around the people, worked.
Mr BP Radhakrishnan of the GSI expressed his concerns about the project stating that Interlinking was of the solution to the increasing frequency of draughts. To him, practical and smaller scale solutions such as rain water harvesting made more sense. He quoted Ms Arundhati Roy as “Big dams were gold mines politicians, beauraucrats and construction industries”.
Mr panchagatti, the former Chairman of the Karnatak Public service commission and Secretary of Irrigation in the state government said that there was no chance that this project would reach completion within the projected time of ten years.

10. Among positive feedbacks was that of Mr MS Menon who stated in his article “The Hindu” that out of the 4000 Billion Cubic Centimeters of rainfall that India received, about 1900 BCM ultimately reached the people and the rest was lost to evaporation and seepage. Most of it happened within just hundred hours a year mainly in the Ganga Brahmaputra basin leading to floods. Interlinking would facilitate the channelling the excess waters to other areas where water was needed.
In response to the allegation that no such project existed anywhere else in the world, he also said that in india itself the Westren Yamuna Canal, the Agra Canal, the Kurnool-Cuadappah canal and the Periyar-Vaigaicanal have been helping the people residing in their respective basins.
He also answers the allegations made that a centralised project such as this can not solve the widely dispersed water deficits by claiming that a nation the size of India can not survive solely on the basis of small scale water harvesting projcts suggested by the opposing party.

11. Mr Menon then answers another objection put forth by the water rich states; that they do not have surplus waters. He says that with free and frank negotiations it is possible to convince these states to share their interest for the benefit of the nation. Also, he feels that arrangements can be made for the donor states to receive compensations from the receptor states in the form of cash or electricity and agricultural produce.

12. RESERVATIONS… Of these, there are many.
While Rajasthan is supportive of the Parbati – Kalisindh – Chambal link, it says that it will not lend full support until its own hydrology project is green lit.
Gujarat has reservations based on the fact that; in spite of water being the subject of each individual state’s interest, the Supreme Court did not take the concerned states’ consent prior to green lighting the project.
Bihar has questioned if the increased food grain production justifies the enormous costs of the project. It also questions if the “water deficient” states really have no water, if those states are using their available water resources responsibly.

13. The state of Kerala opposes the idea based on the fact that individual state’s consent was not taken prior to the judgement.
The judgement itself admits that the states of Karnataka, Bihar, Punjab, Assam and Sikkim have given conditional consents while taking into consideration the environmental and financial implications and socio-economic aspects.
The judgement also reveals that the rivers flowing through Bihar originate in Nepal which makes it essential to seek the neighbouring nation’s consent.

14. POLITICAL DIVIDE
The BJP sees the project as a vindication of its vision. Blames the ruling Congress Party for having mismanaged its original vision in such a way that the project would not see that light of the day.
The Congress officials in the meanwhile say that the project is not environmentally safe.
Even then, the exact position of the party hasn’t been officially clarified by the higher authorities.
The parties supporting The Congress support the project.

15. CONCLUSION
Even though the project is an excellent opportunity for our nation to excel and solve many of our current problems, it is also in some ways an invitation to many more. Thus, even if this project is essential, in the current circumstances and financial situation of the nation, it is unadvisable to go forward with it.

16. THANK YOU…