Rashid Askari
Published in Dhaka Courier, Thursday, December 1st, 2011
Published in Dhaka Courier, Thursday, December 1st, 2011
India has finally moved to build the disputable dam (Tipaimukh) avowedly for flood-control and public welfare. An agreement was signed on Oct 22(2011) between the State Government of Manipur and the hydro developers at New Delhi to this effect. As far as the proposed project (Tipaimukh Hydroelectric Project) is concerned, a dam is going to be erected on the river Barak in Manipur, which flows down into the northeastern part of Bangladesh assuming the names Surma and Kushiara. The 164 meter high and 390 meter long dam would cost about $1.35 billion, and have a capacity to generate around 1,500 megawatts of power for the national grid.
The dam is within 100 km of the Bangladeshi border town of Sylhet, and there is very close dependence between the Indian river Barak and Bangladeshi rivers Surma, and Kushiara. The question may, however, arise as to what if India builds a hundred and one dams and barrages in its own territory. But the thing is not as simple as that! It is a question of joint rivers and shared waters between India and Bangladesh. When it comes to this type of upstream dam, Bangladesh is in a slippery situation, and one might say it is “once bitten, twice shy”. The Farakka Barrage is taking a heavy toll on her. Its entire northeastern part is under threat of desertification. Experts from both the countries have sounded a note of serious caution on the building of the Tipaimikh Dam. But Indian government seems totally unmoved by it.
Adverse effects of the project
Although hydroelectric projects are generally considered better than other power generation options, they have adverse long-term effects on the environment like changes in the ecosystem, and destruction of wildlife habitat and settlements. Especially in the densely populated countries like India and Bangladesh, where rivers are a lifeline for most of the people, projects like Tipaimukh would cause numerous negative effects. Besides, a dam carries with it the seeds of its own malfunction. Even the world-famous Aswan High Dam on the Nile produced several detrimental effects, chief among them being the gradual decrease in the fertility of Egypt’s riverside agricultural lands. The dam’s complete control of the Nile’s annual flooding leaves its load of rich fertilising silt impounded in reservoirs and canals, which prevents the silt from being naturally deposited on farmlands. The Tipaimukh Dam must have similar effects on the fertility and productivity of the downstream land.
Effects on Bangladesh
If the Tipaimukh dam goes into operation, the whole of northeastern Bangladesh, especially Sylhet, Sunamganj, Moulavibazar, Habiganj, Brahmanbaria, Kishoreganj, Netrokona, Narsingdi & Narayanganj districts would suffer severe environmental consequences and the people would be put to reduced circumstances. It would endanger wildlife, agriculture, and freshwater fisheries in a vast area of land which would be alternately affected by the worst droughts and floods in lean and wet seasons. And the daily life of a vast number of people of the Meghna basin who live by fishing would be put at risk. Above all, it would hugely contribute to the problem of water shortages which is assuming considerable dimensions at this crucial juncture due to global warming, which sees the availability of drinking water per capita shrinking worldwide.
Effects on India
The Tipaimukh Hydroelectric Project must not be worth the candle even for India. It is being foisted on the people of Manipur at a location which is geologically one of the most vulnerable in the world. It has recorded at least two major earthquakes measuring 8+ on the Richter scale during the past 50 years. A professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at Manipur University, Soibam Ibotombi warns: “the dam will be a geo-tectonic blunder of international dimensions”. It would submerge a vast area of land, render thousands of people landless, affect 90 villages of Tamenglong district and about 27,242 hectares of cultivable land, and demolish some ancient monuments which bear witness to the history of the Zeliangrong people.
Public reaction
The environment-conscious people of the world are fully aware of the harmful effects of building a dam on a river. So the people of northeastern India and of Bangladesh are bitterly opposing the Tipaimukh dam. There is growing apprehension among them that the environment would be adversely affected by it. The people of Manipur have started fighting legally to stop the project. The Sinlung Indigenous People Human Rights Organisation (SIPHRO) of India opined that the process of choosing the project premises had ignored both the indigenous people and the recommendations of the WCD (World Commission on Dams). There have been widespread protests and anti-dam demonstrations throughout Bangladesh. But the government of India seems to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to all criticisms leveled at the dam.
The ulterior motive
Why is Dr Singh’s government hell-bent on the dam? While the developed countries in the world are backing off from governing nature by artificial means keeping in view its long term effects on the environment, India’s adamant decision to build this highly controversial dam gives rise to a host of questions. The reasons obviously are more political than developmental. The northeastern region is a constant cause of alarm to the far-off central government in Delhi. This region of India has become a breeding ground for security risks. There are 34 separatist organisations only in Manipur. Besides, 60 percent of the total population of Manipur is tribal, occupying only 10 percent of the total land. They usually rise in rebellion against the central government. The government is having a tough time of it. They could not resist them all by force. So they are trying to use the carrot-and-stick approach to control them. Tipaimukh is an expression of the carrot to the local people. The government has given the Manipur people a tantalising offer of 10 percent free electricity (i.e. 40 MW) from the project in exchange for building the dam. That the local people can find huge employment from the project is another enticement to them.
This, however, is all about India’s internal politics. What is their politics with Bangladesh in this regard? Maybe it is not a deliberate act of hostility towards its smaller neighbour. Whatever is perceived along those lines is probably a ripple effect of the Tipaimukh project. Whatever it is, India stands to gain a windfall in bilateral relations by putting Bangladesh under pressure. Killing two birds with one stone may be a part of the Indian government’s overall strategy to gain power.
Although there is no obvious penalty system to bring this sort of crisis to justice, there must be some basic political decency between civilised countries which can dispense fair play in sustaining a gesture of goodwill amid conflicting interests. There are, however, some global agencies that can impart the necessary advice to settle this sort of matter.
Recommendations of World Commission on Dams (WCD)
The proposed Tipaimukh dam is going to be built without conforming to some vital recommendations of the WCD. First, as per the recommendations, a project should give social and environmental aspects the same significance as is given to technical, economic, and financial factors. But the Tipaimukh project is giving significance neither to the local environment nor to that of Bangladesh. Second, before the decision to set up a new dam is taken, outstanding social and environmental issues should be addressed, and all stakeholders should have the opportunity to participate in the decision-making processes. But the Tipaimukh project is the solitary decision of the corridors of power. Even the local people are not privy to it. Thirdly, the project should provide entitlements to the affected people downstream to make up for their losses. But I am afraid there is nothing in their heads such as the Bangladeshi people’s environmental entitlements. Fourthly, the project affected people should be able to negotiate to ensure the implementation of development entitlements. But I don’t know if the Bangladesh government, as the government of a large segment of the project-affected people, has been asked to negotiate any deal with India on Tipaimukh. Fifthly, the project should not affect the rivers’ ecosystem or endanger wildlife. But experts are of the opinion that the project would imperil the ecosystem and wildlife habitat of the entire Meghna basin. Last but not least, a dam should not be constructed on a shared river if the other riparian state/country raises any objection to it. The people of Bangladesh have a strong objection to the building of the dam.
United Nations Convention
The United Nations General Assembly has recently introduced the rule of equitable utilisation on the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses (Article 5 of its United Nations Convention). The assembly ratified the UN Convention on May 21, 1997. As per Article 5, the watercourse nations are required to utilise an international watercourse in an equitable and reasonable manner with a view to attaining optimal and sustainable utilisation, and benefits consistent with adequate protection in the watercourse. It also states that watercourse nations shall participate in the use, development, and protection of an international watercourse in an equitable and reasonable manner. But contrary to these all, Bangladesh as a watercourse nation has not been allowed either to utilise the watercourse equitably and reasonably, or to participate in its use, development, and protection. The project owners are in open violation of the UN convention in this regard.
No-Harm Rule
The UN Convention has also introduced a second principle called “no-harm rule,” in its Article 7 which is subordinate to the rule of equitable utilization of international watercourse. Article 7 suggests the watercourse nations to take all “appropriate measures” to prevent themselves from causing significant harm to other watercourse nations. Nevertheless, if they cause another watercourse nation any significant harm, they must take all appropriate measures in consultation with the affected nation, to eliminate or mitigate the harm and, where appropriate, to discuss the question of compensation.
Although the UN Convention has not come into force, it has received broad endorsements, and is widely accepted as an embodiment of the basic principles of international water law. It should be used as the law on transboundary fresh waters among the watercourse nations regardless of whether they have ratified it. This law was confirmed by the International Court of Justice in its ruling on the Danube River Case (Hungary v. Slovakia) in 1997. So, the watercourse nations need to develop treaties to ensure the equitable utilisation and management of internationally shared groundwater basins.
The International Boundary Waters Treaty
The International Boundary Waters Treaty (1909), between the United States and Great Britain set up an International Joint Commission of Americans and Canadians to supervise the issues related to waters on the boundary between the United States and Canada. Utilisation of the shared waters, shipping and other transportation rights, building of dams and bridges, and concern for probable water pollution are within the jurisdiction of the Joint Commission. The treaty proposed the commission “to prevent disputes regarding the use of boundary waters and to settle all questions which are now pending between the United States and the Dominion of Canada involving the rights, obligations, or interests of either in relation to the other or to the inhabitants of the other, along their common frontier.”
Indus Waters Treaty
After partition of India in 1947, while the irrigation system of the Bari Doab and the Sutlej Valley Project was disrupted by the international boundary between India and West Pakistan, which led to disruptions to the water supply in some parts of Pakistan, a treaty between Pakistan and India known as the Indus Waters Treaty was drawn up in 1960 under the mediation of the World Bank to resolve the crisis. This was also done in light of the International Boundary Waters Treaty and both the countries built dams, barrages in their own parts under the terms of the treaty. This is also a shining example of the equitable use of shared waters by neighbouring countries. Similarly, as a lower riparian country, Bangladesh preserves the right to an equitable share of the water of Barak, and in its light can seek to examine the details of the dam construction by neighbouring India. And India, being an upper riparian country, is bound by legal obligation to negotiate with Bangladesh for the erection of such a huge structure on a common river.
India-Bangladesh Joint Rivers Commission
A joint river commission was assigned between India and Bangladesh on 24 November, 1972. In Article 4 of its Statute, it is clearly stated that the Commission will “maintain liaison between the participating countries in order to ensure the most effective joint efforts in maximising the benefits from common river systems to both the countries” and “study flood control and irrigation projects so that the water resources of the region can be utilised on an equitable basis for the mutual benefit of the peoples of the two countries”. What benefits are Bangladesh going to get from the dam to be built on a common river? Has India made any liaison with Bangladesh regarding this dam under the terms of the Commission? Certainly the answer is negative! As a matter of fact, India is playing its cards very close to its chest and is going to set up the dam without giving a damn about the Joint River Commission.
Policy on the issue
It is not our prerogative to see how India deals with its local population in Tipaimukh in particular, and the Seven Sister States in general. We are deeply concerned about the devastating effects of the dam on our Bangladesh, and tend to leap to her defence. We should leave no bilateral and global stones unturned to mitigate the problem. India may have the privilege of the upstream Barak, but we too have the rights to the downstream Surma and Kushiara. All the global schools of legal thought would look favourably upon our cause.
We should, however, deal with this problem with a down to earth policy. We should not accept India’s domineering attitude lying down, nor should we wage war against it. We should try to settle the dispute by diplomatic means and rounds of negotiations. In the first instance, we should try to get the ins and outs of the project straight from the horse’s mouth, and then determine its detrimental effects on us with a view to embarking on meaningful negotiations. If we exhibit a knee-jerk reaction, and chase the proverbial crow that has reportedly flown past by snatching our ears, we cannot strike the right note. If we can sound very convincing to India and to the international community with regard to our claims as the project affected people, we can easily stop the project or at least come to an equitable compromise that would give us our due. The government can find a way out, if they have a strong will. They have taken our maritime cases to international court and are hoping to win. They may have to take recourse to legal proceedings in this regard too if all negotiations come unstuck.
The surge of protest against the dam is sweeping through Bangladesh and parts of India. It is a big plus in the campaign. But we should keep an open mind on it. It would be best if we could totally stop the dam’s construction. But if that is not at all possible, we should not close the book on the issue. It could be better to choose the lesser of the two evils than to lose all at the end of the day.
We should strike a bargain with India on the question of the project affected people’s rights/ dues. We have to think of maximising our profits and minimising the losses inflicted on us by the project. It’s good that both our prime minister and opposition Lleader seem to see eye to eye with each other at least on this issue. But if they only play to the gallery, we cannot get anything out of it. They should mean what they say. The government’s steps should not be affected by any smaller interests of political ascendancy. To work honestly, sincerely, and disinterestedly for the country, to bargain and negotiate rationally for it, and to fight for its rights, for the sake of the country itself, not for anything else, is the sign of the best form of patriotism for a democratic government and a conscientious opposition party. If our present democratic government and the parties in opposition can be made to realise this, winning or losing the Tipaimukh deal won’t make any significant difference.
Conclusion
Water is an eternal cause of rivalry. It is the ambient natural resource that neither knows nor respects human boundaries. The world’s 261 international river basins, spreading over 45 percent of the Earth’s surface, are shared by a multitude of nations. But the reality is that even the most neighbourly nations have found it difficult to reach a mutually acceptable settlement regarding transboundary waters. Water has become an increasingly vital resource. A wide range of water conflicts appear throughout history, and people have been repeatedly at war while protecting each other’s water rights. Many apprehend that the Third World War would be a Water War. It is interesting to note that the English word “rival” is derived from the Latin word “rivalis,” which means persons who live on opposite banks of the same river. But let us hope with India, we can cultivate what is a friendly rivalry.
No comments:
Post a Comment