Tags:
Journalism of Courage
The quadrilateral road project is one of the more important things that has happened in independent India. Perhaps encouraged by that, it is now being conceived that rivers will be interlinked. The two are, of course, not the same, even though in some areas conveying water is more important than conveying goods and persons.
There is confusion in the public mind on the 8216;8216;interlinking of rivers8217;8217;. The idea has an obvious appeal 8212; people starved of water think their problem will be solved. This is actually far more difficult than the roads project.
The grandiose concepts of a 8216;Garland Canal8217; or the Ganga-Cauvery link are not being talked about and have been given a decent burial.
The present proposals are a modified version of a Perspective Plan built up by the National Water Development Agency when A.D. Mohile was its chairman. It is basically a concept, rather than a project. Some parts are better worked out and are almost pre-feasability level; others not so. In planning jargon, it is the kind of exciting concept which is written up in short notes and needs brainstorming over what to accept, reject or modify. In the process, one learns a lot anyway.
Basically, the idea is to stay away from crazy concepts of lifting entire rivers and drawing lines on a map and calling it a project. The better worked out ideas are to link some adjoining rivers: some of which have already been projectised.
For example, the Narmada-Tapti link. Some of the links, for example, are within a state and should, therefore, be easy to get going on. As you go along, the linked network becomes larger and there is some transfer from the north and east to the west and south.
Even this is fairly ambitious. And its benefits are large. But it could be phased and anyway there is choice, because unless past practices developed with a lot of difficulty are given up, there is nothing at present which meets the project preparation norms of the Nitin Desai Committee of the Planning Commission, which had set the standards of project preparation for the irrigation sector as far as the Government of India was concerned. Alternatives can, therefore, be looked at.
Unfortunately, the idea excites a lot of emotion and reasoned discussion doesn8217;t seem very easy. One would have thought a sensible way of approaching the problem is to begin with what we are reasonably sure of in terms of what is possible and not possible and to develop the rest of the argument with an open mind and additional work.
But this doesn8217;t seem easy even though Suresh Prabhu who heads the official effort on it seems at this stage to be fairly accommodating, and in spite of the fact that the idea has already received powerful endorsement.
To some of the committed, there is no shortage of water anywhere and with better management at the local level and with local institutions, the water problem will be solved. Now this is something on which there is a tradition of work. Given the accepted global norms of per capita availability of water, in a business-as-usual scenario, expert studies show that India will be short by 10 per cent or more in a decade and a half and some regions will be in serious trouble. To this the reply is that whenever water harvesting has been done at the local level, there has been no shortage of drinking water 8212; which is true and is a very powerful argument for water harvesting and management.
But even in such areas, there is a shortage of water for irrigation and even for animals in many areas. At this stage, facts give way to 8216;8216;fundamental beliefs8217;8217;. One is an argument that there are always activities which need little water. The other is that there was a time even these areas managed with little water.
This then leads to an intellectual cul de sac from which there is no escape. It is the kind of situation a brahmanical mind loves. Meanwhile, other more practical societies would have solved the problem and gone ahead.
To some, the project is ready and we can start constructing. To others, it is not the project we should discuss but the philosophy of life and state. The omens are not good, unless civil society forces a more open and practical debate and brings out that the fringes have either led us to costly mistakes or, at the other end, equally costly inaction.
Write to ykalaghexpressindia.com
