---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ashok T. Jaisinghani <ashokjai@sancharnet.in>
Date: Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 2:48 PM
Subject: Re: Grand distraction called river interlinking - CSE's Bulletin (March19, 2012)
From: Ashok T. Jaisinghani <ashokjai@sancharnet.in>
Date: Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 2:48 PM
Subject: Re: Grand distraction called river interlinking - CSE's Bulletin (March19, 2012)
Linking of Indian Rivers was Originally My Idea
Sunita Narain jee,
In your editorial, "Grand distraction called river interlinking" published in CSE's Bulletin (March 19, 2012), it is wrongly stated:
"The term river linking has come from the idea floated by irrigation engineer K L Rao way back in 1972."
The above statement about Dr K L Rao is absolutely false. Dr K L Rao, Union Minister for Irrigation & Power in 1972, was not the first to moot the idea of linking the rivers of India.
I had proposed the linking of Indian rivers in my book, "JAI ECONOMICS: The Economics of Great Social Significance," published in the year 1965, a copy of which I had sent to the Library of the Indian Parliament.
The following is an extract from Page Nos. 51 and 52 of my book:
"If the production in agriculture and industry increases rapidly, the Government will get more and more taxes. The Government can then spend huge amounts on large multi-purpose river projects. One such project should consist of a RIVER LINK SYSTEM.
"There are floods in the North, and droughts in the South. Floods and droughts cause destruction of crops and famines. This cannot be allowed to happen for long. Therefore, it is necessary to join rivers of the North to rivers of the South. There should be many connecting canals to join the different rivers at appropriate points to form a RIVER LINK SYSTEM. Actually, the present river water dispute between some States is unnecessary. The work on the project should be started in 15-20 years.
"For the cheap blasting of the connecting canals, Atomic Energy can be used to a very large extent. The conventional methods should be used for constructing only those parts of the canals which will be near thickly populated areas. In 15-20 years, Nuclear Physics will be enormously developed, and we shall also be having many good nuclear scientists. The canals should be made quite deep, so that they can be used for navigation too; river beds should be made deeper where necessary. There should also be a few diversion dams to make water flow in the required direction. A network of distributing canals and some storage dams should be constructed to distribute and to store water."
Now I am Against Linking of all Rivers
Let me inform you that I have changed my views on the interlinking of the rivers. I am now strongly against the linking of all the rivers of India because many of them have become extremely filthy due to heavy contamination with the sewage of human and animal excreta and urine. Many rivers have also become highly polluted with toxic chemicals from the effluents of many factories, which are discharged into the rivers through thousands of drains. We should consider the linking of only some of the rivers that are not so polluted.
The central and state governments and the courts have miserably failed to prevent and reverse the extremely dangerous pollution of the rivers in India. They have no right to force the country to interlink all the rivers of India, as the polluted waters can spread diseases and cause early deaths of millions of people.
Even the Supreme Court of India should stop interfering and dictating to the Indian people on this issue of very great national importance without considering the opinions of health experts and environmentalists. The Indian Parliament and the Supreme Court have no right to order anything that is against the interests of the Indian people.
There is no point in spending about Rs 5 lakh crore, which may increase to Rs 25 lakh crore due to inflation and corruption, on this massive project, which can turn out to be the worst tragedy of the nation. It will be better to use more and more sea water for washing and cleaning purposes, wherever that is possible, for growing plants in coastal areas that require sea water, and for producing massive amounts of drinking water with the help of desalination plants.
Previously, I was also in favor of using nuclear energy on a massive scale, but now I am against the extensive use of nuclear energy because of the dangers involved in its use. In the past, we were wrongly made to believe that the use of nuclear energy was safe and clean. We must learn from our mistakes and correct ourselves, but we must first acknowledge our mistakes, as only then we can change our views on the basis of facts. We cannot run away from reality by refusing to accept facts.
Ashok T. Jaisinghani.
Editor & Publisher:
www.Wonder-Cures.com
www.Nutritionist-No-1.com
www.Top-Nut.com Top Nutritionist
www.SindhiKalakar.com
www.Wonder-Cures.com
www.Nutritionist-No-1.com
www.Top-Nut.com Top Nutritionist
www.SindhiKalakar.com
----- Original Message -----
From: CSE
To: csewhatsnew8@lists.csenews.org ; csewhatsnew1@lists.csenews.org ; csewhatsnew2@lists.csenews.org ; csewhatsnew3@lists.csenews.org ; csewhatsnew4@lists.csenews.org ; csewhatsnew5@lists.csenews.org ; csewhatsnew6@lists.csenews.org
Sent: 19 Mar 2012 9:08 AM
Subject: Grand distraction called river interlinking-CSE's Bulletin (March19, 2012)
==================================================
CSE's Fortnightly News Bulletin (March 19, 2012)
==================================================
The Union Budget's out, and while it covers some ground in meeting our expectations, it also leaves a lot unsaid and undone -- big cars and SUVs get a blast of tax hike, but misuse of diesel fuel subsidy by cars earns no censure. See our press release on this (http://www.cseindia.org/content/budget-2012-a-mixed-bag-says-cse) and follow us for live updates (http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/live-updates-budget-2012-13).
In Down To Earth this fortnight, we have the editor's comment on the contentious issue of river interlinking, while the cover looks at India's ailing transport behemoth, the Railways...
Courses, media fellowships, briefings and new reports... this edition of 'What's New at CSE' brings more of all that. As also our latest publication -- 'Paryavaran ki Rajneeti', a collection of Sunita Narain's writings in Hindi.
====================================================
EDITORIAL: Grand distraction called river interlinking
by Sunita Narain
======================================================
CSE's Fortnightly News Bulletin (March 19, 2012)
==================================================
The Union Budget's out, and while it covers some ground in meeting our expectations, it also leaves a lot unsaid and undone -- big cars and SUVs get a blast of tax hike, but misuse of diesel fuel subsidy by cars earns no censure. See our press release on this (http://www.cseindia.org/content/budget-2012-a-mixed-bag-says-cse) and follow us for live updates (http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/live-updates-budget-2012-13).
In Down To Earth this fortnight, we have the editor's comment on the contentious issue of river interlinking, while the cover looks at India's ailing transport behemoth, the Railways...
Courses, media fellowships, briefings and new reports... this edition of 'What's New at CSE' brings more of all that. As also our latest publication -- 'Paryavaran ki Rajneeti', a collection of Sunita Narain's writings in Hindi.
====================================================
EDITORIAL: Grand distraction called river interlinking
by Sunita Narain
======================================================
Last fortnight, the Supreme Court issued a diktat to the government to implement the scheme to interlink rivers. The directions are straightforward.The government shall set up a high level committee of ministers and other representatives on interlinking of rivers; the committee shall meet "at least, once in two months"; in the absence of any member the meeting shall not be adjourned; the committee shall submit a biannual report on actions to the Union Cabinet, "which shall take final and appropriate decisions in the interest of the country as expeditiously as possible and preferably within 30 days from the matter being placed before it for consideration."
Without getting into the obvious matter of judicial overreach, let us take a careful look at what interlinking is all about and what the decision will simply. The fact is that transfer of water from one river basin to another is not, per se, either a novel or an untested idea. Every irrigation project involves such transfer at some scale. The question is what this particular idea of linking rivers implies.
The term river linking has come from the idea floated by irrigation engineer K L Rao way back in 1972.
Without getting into the obvious matter of judicial overreach, let us take a careful look at what interlinking is all about and what the decision will simply. The fact is that transfer of water from one river basin to another is not, per se, either a novel or an untested idea. Every irrigation project involves such transfer at some scale. The question is what this particular idea of linking rivers implies.
The term river linking has come from the idea floated by irrigation engineer K L Rao way back in 1972.
He proposed the construction of a grandiose Ganga-Cauvery Canal, which would divert floodwaters of the Ganga near Patna for about 150 days in a year to river Cauvery some 2,640 km away in the south. This idea captured imagination, as it seemed to state such a delicious proposal: take excess water from the Ganga to the water-deficit and stressed areas of Tamil Nadu.
A pilot, Captain Dinshaw J Dastur, suggested a variation: construction of garland canals, one for the Himalayan watershed and the other for the Western Ghats. This idea was also appealing, simple and essential. Long-distance irrigation projects then spawned a huge water bureaucracy. In 1982, the National Water Development Agency was set up to study and implement the project to first link peninsular rivers and then Himalayan rivers. Its objective is based on the same simple concept: there are floods in some parts, droughts in the other, so if we link the rivers, we all will be happy.
But for equally obvious reasons the agency's proposals were, government after government, studied, considered and buried. But not forever. In early 2000, the Supreme Court and government got back into the game. The court ordered the government to speed up implementation of the project and set the deadline of 2016 for its completion. The National Democratic Alliance then in power quickly announced the setting up of a task force for linking rivers. It was to complete some 30 river links in two years, adding some 1,000 km of canals. This task was a non-starter.
The next government came to power and while the concept appealed, better sense prevailed. Interlinking was found technically unfeasible and costly. But the water bureaucracy did not give up. In 2008, the National Council of Applied Economic Research produced a study volume, in which it explained in simplistic terms that the project would cost Rs 4,44,331.2 crore at the 2003-2004 rates. But this investment would lead to rich dividends in terms of increased household income and prosperity for all, it stated. The report would have gone unnoted but for the Supreme Court, which has bought this line and ordered the government to obey or face contempt.
The question still is: what does this project imply, given that a massive number of irrigation projects on the government's wish list remain incomplete? First, it implies the notion that there is huge surplus of water in river basins. This assumption is flawed. Most river basins today are overextended in usage, and in most regions tension is growing between old rural users of surface water and new industrial and urban users. The Mahanadi basin, which would be linked to the Godavari is a classic example of this error. As Down To Earth explained in a recent investigation, there is little unallocated water in the basin (see 'In deep water', Down To Earth, February 16-29, 2012).
The second assumption that floodwaters can be channelised is equally erroneous. The fact is when one river is in spate so is next river and transferring water would require huge storage facilities. Construction of large reservoirs has massive environmental impacts not considered in the scheme. Many irrigation projects are stalled on this count. More importantly, the government's track record in resettling people displaced by such projects is abysmal.
The third assumption is that India will gain from investment in irrigation projects is indeed true. But it is equally true that the current challenge is to ensure that the projects, already built and commissioned, are kept operational. The 12th Five Year Plan working group clearly states that priority is bridging the growing gap between the irrigation potential created and utilised.
The idea of interlinking rivers is appealing because it is so grand. But this is also the reason it is nothing more than a distraction that will take away precious time and money from the business at hand. The task is to provide clean water to all and to use the resource with efficiency. This agenda needs our attention. Indeed our obsession.
Post your comments on this editorial online at http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/grand-distraction-called-river-interlinking
A pilot, Captain Dinshaw J Dastur, suggested a variation: construction of garland canals, one for the Himalayan watershed and the other for the Western Ghats. This idea was also appealing, simple and essential. Long-distance irrigation projects then spawned a huge water bureaucracy. In 1982, the National Water Development Agency was set up to study and implement the project to first link peninsular rivers and then Himalayan rivers. Its objective is based on the same simple concept: there are floods in some parts, droughts in the other, so if we link the rivers, we all will be happy.
But for equally obvious reasons the agency's proposals were, government after government, studied, considered and buried. But not forever. In early 2000, the Supreme Court and government got back into the game. The court ordered the government to speed up implementation of the project and set the deadline of 2016 for its completion. The National Democratic Alliance then in power quickly announced the setting up of a task force for linking rivers. It was to complete some 30 river links in two years, adding some 1,000 km of canals. This task was a non-starter.
The next government came to power and while the concept appealed, better sense prevailed. Interlinking was found technically unfeasible and costly. But the water bureaucracy did not give up. In 2008, the National Council of Applied Economic Research produced a study volume, in which it explained in simplistic terms that the project would cost Rs 4,44,331.2 crore at the 2003-2004 rates. But this investment would lead to rich dividends in terms of increased household income and prosperity for all, it stated. The report would have gone unnoted but for the Supreme Court, which has bought this line and ordered the government to obey or face contempt.
The question still is: what does this project imply, given that a massive number of irrigation projects on the government's wish list remain incomplete? First, it implies the notion that there is huge surplus of water in river basins. This assumption is flawed. Most river basins today are overextended in usage, and in most regions tension is growing between old rural users of surface water and new industrial and urban users. The Mahanadi basin, which would be linked to the Godavari is a classic example of this error. As Down To Earth explained in a recent investigation, there is little unallocated water in the basin (see 'In deep water', Down To Earth, February 16-29, 2012).
The second assumption that floodwaters can be channelised is equally erroneous. The fact is when one river is in spate so is next river and transferring water would require huge storage facilities. Construction of large reservoirs has massive environmental impacts not considered in the scheme. Many irrigation projects are stalled on this count. More importantly, the government's track record in resettling people displaced by such projects is abysmal.
The third assumption is that India will gain from investment in irrigation projects is indeed true. But it is equally true that the current challenge is to ensure that the projects, already built and commissioned, are kept operational. The 12th Five Year Plan working group clearly states that priority is bridging the growing gap between the irrigation potential created and utilised.
The idea of interlinking rivers is appealing because it is so grand. But this is also the reason it is nothing more than a distraction that will take away precious time and money from the business at hand. The task is to provide clean water to all and to use the resource with efficiency. This agenda needs our attention. Indeed our obsession.
Post your comments on this editorial online at http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/grand-distraction-called-river-interlinking
My previous correspondence on the subject:
----- Original Message -----
From: Ashok T. Jaisinghani
To: PIONEER
Sent: 10 Mar 2004 1:21 AM
Subject: Linking of Indian Rivers is Originally My Idea
To:
The Editor,
THE PIONEER.
Linking of Indian Rivers is Originally My Idea
Sir:
"Linking rivers, linking people" by M S Menon in PIONEER of March 08, 2004, has some blatantly false statements. The following paragraph in that article is based on a completely false statement:
"Suggestions for the National Water Grid, 'The Ganga-Cauvery Link', were initially mooted in 1972 by Dr K L Rao, then Union Minister for Irrigation and Power. Subsequently, many proposals were received by the Government for interlinking of rivers, notable among them being the 'Garland Canal' suggested by Capt Dastur in 1974. However, all these proposals were found to be either prohibitively costly or not practical."
Dr. K. L. Rao, Union Minister for Irrigation & Power in 1972 was not the first to moot the idea of linking the rivers of India. Why do the editors of Delhi newspapers print such falsehoods?
The following are some paragraphs from pages 51 and 52 of my book, JAI ECONOMICS, published by me in March 1965, a copy of which was sent to the Librarian of the Indian Parliament:
"If the production in agriculture and industry increases rapidly, the Government will get more and more taxes. The Government can then spend huge amounts on large multi-purpose river projects. One such project should consist of a RIVER LINK SYSTEM.There are floods in the North, and droughts in the South. Floods and droughts cause destruction of crops and famines. This cannot be allowed to happen for long. Therefore, it is necessary to join rivers of the North to rivers of the South. There should be many connecting canals to join the different rivers at appropriate points to form a RIVER LINK SYSTEM. Actually, the present river water dispute between some states in unnecessary.The canals should be made quite deep, so that they can be used for navigation too; river beds should be made deeper where necessary. There should also be a few diversion dams to make water flow in the required direction. A network of distributing canals and some storage dams should be constructed to distribute and to store water.The following will be the benefits from the RIVER LINK PROJECT:(1) Floods in the North can be checked by making the surplus water flow southwards. Damage to crops and property will be reduced.(2) Droughts in the South will be eliminated. Indeed, the South will be able to raise two crops in a year by utilizing water for the whole year.(3) Increased navigational facilities will provide a cheap means of transport."
I hope you will publish my rejoinder in a suitable form, as no purpose will be served in perpetuating a false belief about who originally mooted the idea of linking the rivers of North and South India.
Sincerely,
Ashok T. Jaisinghani.
Pune - 411042, India.
Tel: (020) 26353308.
Website: www.Wonder-Cures.com
PIONEER of
Monday, March 08, 2004 Updated: 08:44 pm .
Linking rivers, linking people
MS Menon
The proposal for interlinking the rivers in the country is getting
international media attention, thanks to the delegates present at the
recently held 'Peoples World Water Forum' and 'World Socialist Forum' in the
country. Using weapons of mass disinformation, some of them reported to have
attacked the proposal terming it as "destructive" so that these
nation-bashers could appear as "liberals" to ingratiate themselves to a
class of people inside and outside the country. Such a brazen approach
betrays lack of preliminary understanding of the proposal and reflects
callousness in raising concerns in international fora.
During the same time, but at a different venue, the President of India,
addressing a galaxy of top scientists, intellectuals and experts commended
the proposal stating that it would provide a solution to the perennial
problems of floods and droughts in the country.
The main characteristic of India's water resources is its uneven
distribution in space and time leading to endemic and sporadic problems of
floods and droughts. Two-thirds of the annually available water resource of
1950 Billion Cubic Metre (BCM) is contributed by the
Ganga-Brahmaputra-Meghna (GBM) system, covering one-third of the country's
geographical area. Consequently, the remaining two-thirds of the country has
to remain satisfied with the balance resource, and face scarcity while the
GBM basin experiences floods. Hence, if resource abundant rivers like the
Brahmaputra, the Ganga, etc. could be linked with the seasonal peninsular
rivers, the available water resources could be optimally harnessed, and the
miseries of recurring droughts and floods could be contained to a great
extent.
Suggestions for the National Water Grid, 'The Ganga-Cauvery Link', were
initially mooted in 1972 by Dr KL Rao, then Union Minister for Irrigation
and Power. Subsequently, many proposals were received by the Government for
interlinking of rivers, notable among them being the 'Garland Canal'
suggested by Capt Dastur in 1974. However, all these proposals were found to
be either prohibitively costly or not practical.
The continued onslaught of floods and droughts in the country prompted the
Government of India to come out with the National Perspective Plan for
interlinking of rivers comprising two components, namely - 'The Himalayan
river component' envisaging storages and interlinking canal systems to
transfer surplus flows from the Himalayan rivers, and 'The Peninsular river
component' envisaging similar works to transfer surpluses from the Mahanadi,
Godavari and West flowing rivers to drought-prone areas.
Accordingly, the National Water Development Agency (NWDA) was set up in 1980
to study and to suggest possible links. As per the studies, when fully
implemented the mega project is estimated to bring an additional area of 35
million hectares under irrigation and generate additional power of 34000 MW
with an investment of Rs 5,60,000 crore spread over 30 years. The proposal
got a boost after the President of India, Prime Minister, Judges of the
Supreme Court and many political leaders endorsed it as a preferred solution
for combating recurring droughts in the country.
Subsequently, a task force headed by the former Union Energy Minister,
Suresh Prabhu, was set up to devise a framework for implementing the
project. While the scheme appealed to water deficit states, water endowed
regions were not in favour of diverting their surpluses to needy basins.
Hence, the immediate task of Suresh Prabhu is to get consensus of these
states for the proposal.
Criticism against the project came from environmental and social activists,
cynics and self-appointed experts. According to some, instead of wasting
time and money on this grandiose project it is better to go for viable
micro-level water harvesting alternatives to get similar benefits with small
investments. Others see the destruction of cultures, communities and
ecosystems. Doubts have also been raised not only about the engineering
feasibility of lifting the water across the basins but also on issues of
environmental impacts, resettlement and rehabilitation of the displaced
people, etc.
Criticism of the project has also come from some prophets of doom pointing
out that the canal system under the project might become an open sewer
garlanding the length and breadth of the country in the same manner as the
works under the Golden Quadrilateral Project converting the national
highways into a network of conveyor belts of noxious emissions!
(The writer is member-secretary, Indian National Committee on Irrigation and
Drainage. The article is to be concluded)
Linking rivers, linking people
MS Menon
The proposal for interlinking the rivers in the country is getting
international media attention, thanks to the delegates present at the
recently held 'Peoples World Water Forum' and 'World Socialist Forum' in the
country. Using weapons of mass disinformation, some of them reported to have
attacked the proposal terming it as "destructive" so that these
nation-bashers could appear as "liberals" to ingratiate themselves to a
class of people inside and outside the country. Such a brazen approach
betrays lack of preliminary understanding of the proposal and reflects
callousness in raising concerns in international fora.
During the same time, but at a different venue, the President of India,
addressing a galaxy of top scientists, intellectuals and experts commended
the proposal stating that it would provide a solution to the perennial
problems of floods and droughts in the country.
The main characteristic of India's water resources is its uneven
distribution in space and time leading to endemic and sporadic problems of
floods and droughts. Two-thirds of the annually available water resource of
1950 Billion Cubic Metre (BCM) is contributed by the
Ganga-Brahmaputra-Meghna (GBM) system, covering one-third of the country's
geographical area. Consequently, the remaining two-thirds of the country has
to remain satisfied with the balance resource, and face scarcity while the
GBM basin experiences floods. Hence, if resource abundant rivers like the
Brahmaputra, the Ganga, etc. could be linked with the seasonal peninsular
rivers, the available water resources could be optimally harnessed, and the
miseries of recurring droughts and floods could be contained to a great
extent.
Suggestions for the National Water Grid, 'The Ganga-Cauvery Link', were
initially mooted in 1972 by Dr KL Rao, then Union Minister for Irrigation
and Power. Subsequently, many proposals were received by the Government for
interlinking of rivers, notable among them being the 'Garland Canal'
suggested by Capt Dastur in 1974. However, all these proposals were found to
be either prohibitively costly or not practical.
The continued onslaught of floods and droughts in the country prompted the
Government of India to come out with the National Perspective Plan for
interlinking of rivers comprising two components, namely - 'The Himalayan
river component' envisaging storages and interlinking canal systems to
transfer surplus flows from the Himalayan rivers, and 'The Peninsular river
component' envisaging similar works to transfer surpluses from the Mahanadi,
Godavari and West flowing rivers to drought-prone areas.
Accordingly, the National Water Development Agency (NWDA) was set up in 1980
to study and to suggest possible links. As per the studies, when fully
implemented the mega project is estimated to bring an additional area of 35
million hectares under irrigation and generate additional power of 34000 MW
with an investment of Rs 5,60,000 crore spread over 30 years. The proposal
got a boost after the President of India, Prime Minister, Judges of the
Supreme Court and many political leaders endorsed it as a preferred solution
for combating recurring droughts in the country.
Subsequently, a task force headed by the former Union Energy Minister,
Suresh Prabhu, was set up to devise a framework for implementing the
project. While the scheme appealed to water deficit states, water endowed
regions were not in favour of diverting their surpluses to needy basins.
Hence, the immediate task of Suresh Prabhu is to get consensus of these
states for the proposal.
Criticism against the project came from environmental and social activists,
cynics and self-appointed experts. According to some, instead of wasting
time and money on this grandiose project it is better to go for viable
micro-level water harvesting alternatives to get similar benefits with small
investments. Others see the destruction of cultures, communities and
ecosystems. Doubts have also been raised not only about the engineering
feasibility of lifting the water across the basins but also on issues of
environmental impacts, resettlement and rehabilitation of the displaced
people, etc.
Criticism of the project has also come from some prophets of doom pointing
out that the canal system under the project might become an open sewer
garlanding the length and breadth of the country in the same manner as the
works under the Golden Quadrilateral Project converting the national
highways into a network of conveyor belts of noxious emissions!
(The writer is member-secretary, Indian National Committee on Irrigation and
Drainage. The article is to be concluded)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment